Talk:Anti-French sentiment in the United States/archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Removed from the article[edit]

Hi. I found this in the part that discussed France's military intervention in the Ivory Coast. Since I don't know how to NPOV it, and can't find a place in the article to put counterarguments, I did what hardcore fans of the Wiki system balk at and moved it out altogether.

(this last point does not hold since France intervened in the frame of a long-signed assistance treaty with the Ivorian government as a consequence of the peaceful de-colonization involving maintenance of permanent troops even in times of peace).

Those who know what should be done with it are encouraged to do so. -- Kizor 17:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Needs serious work[edit]

This article is an abject failure in terms of NPOV and is much too long. It reads more as apologia for the sentiments of its various authors than a serious attempt to dissect the problem. As an example, how can any article on this topic not mention Vichy? The explanations for anti-French sentiment in the context of the Iraq invasion focus totally on the "usual suspects" of media manipulation, etc. and make no attempt to provide historical context. Mascarasnake 22:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, international anti-french sentiment also needs addressed, and is profound in its absence. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 22:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, international anti-french sentiment should be addressed briefly or at least linked, but this article is titled "...in the united states" so it's good that it focuses on just the US. Though, perhaps is focuses too much on the recent anti-french sentiment. Bananaclaw 07:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm rather sure that the United States is not the only country in which anti-French sentiment is prevalent. Anti-French sentiment is found in the UK, Germany, and a few other countries, I'm rather certain... That should definitely be adressed, instead of portraying the United States as hating France for not going along with it during the Iraq invasion. The actual truth, that the mutual animosity goes deeper and further into the past was mentioned, though not to the degree to which it should have been. The portions regarding de Gaulle should be added to, as well as the fact that de Gaulle attempted to block the UK's entrance into the European Community because of Churchill's support of the "special relationship" between the UK and the United States. Something should also be said about Vichy France and their collaboration with the Nazi occupiers.

Without denying that the word "french" is often associated with negative traits, I can safely say that the anti-french sentiment existing in the US is far stronger than in other "rich" countries (the francophobia in Ivory Coast and other former colonies doesn't enter in the same category).
The only place where it could possibly be compared is in the UK where the anti-french sentiment is traditional (an article about that would be really interesting as it has already been suggested), but this sentiment has decreased over the decades and doesn't have the same strength anymore.
Here's a link showing the favorability ratings for France (amongst other countries) in the world :Western Public Rate Major Nations.
This is our only article on anti-french sentiment, and was largely written in response to the events of post-9/11 / the second Iraq war. that doesn't mean we couldn't move the article to a new title, if the content shifted to the broader subject of anti-french sentiment. I would favor such a circumstance, but the article is certainly not ready for that now, the vast majority of it focuses on a very narrow timeframe and series of events. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 11:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
At least i started the books and references list ... How can we fight ignorance? --Neuromancien 02:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As for Germany, I don't know of any similiar anti-french sentiments (usually only anti-US). -- 84.163.46.247 15:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Moore went to Cannes doesn't indicate that he is pro-France. A neutral (or even pro-Bush) movie director would accept any award in one of the most prestigious movie festivals in the world. (Also note that the jury was international with an American president, so it may have chosen Moore for his anti-Bush ideas, but not for his alleged pro-French sentiments).Thbz 10:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I may propose some tracks to extend it to other countries: there is also anti-French racism in former colonies (needless to say, but better when it is said), and in overseas territories (yes they are French, but some don't like the metropolitans).
There is also a long history of war against England (Joan of Arc and all the stuff).
But, well, over and over we come back to clichés...
Cdang|write me 17:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC), damn' froggie

I do think that such completely DISGUSTING sites as "FuckFrance..." should be deleted. I found one of these sites, and I tried to send them an e-mail, telling them how it was DISGUSTING (I'm not French, but Italian). But it seems impossible to have anything published by these gentlemen, if you don't agree with them. I'm not even sure that they've read my message. Please, DELETE THEM! User:Tom Hope March 31, 2005, 21.20

Most, if not all of the controversy about this article being NPOV seems to be that it doesn't include the [[Anti-French sentiment] of other countries. The article now exists (although it was recently moved to User:Marskell/Anti-French sentiment for massive restructuring), so those informations don't need to be here anymore. Is there any other argument that supports this NPOV tag? I think not, so let's start a vote.Jules LT 17:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to remove the NPOV tag from the article? (Approve/Reject)

  • Approve Jules LT 17:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Whether this is silent unanimity or people don't care, I'll take that as a yes and remove the tag. People! React! Jules LT 18:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"Freedom Fries" are symbolic of American unity and resolve in response to the perceived anti-Americanism in France. Dismissing them as mere "propaganda" is non-NPOV and misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.247.105.242 (talkcontribs) 05:35, 10 March 2006. --BSI 18:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

French Fries[edit]

I) This term is not used in Belgium, as the article suggest. In Germany, France and Belgium "french fries" are called "pommes frites"(pronounced "pomm fritt"). "pommes" comes from "pommes de terre", which is: potatoes. "frite" is deep frying. In Germany both parts of the original name are often used instead of the complete term (i.e.: "pommes" (pronounced "pommse" and "fritten").

[I think the point of the article was not to say that Belgium considers "French fries" to be French but rather that in France, it is Belgium that is considered as the country in which "frites" were invented. This is a correct statement and is so entrenched in French folklore that in the popular Astérix series of comics, a comical explanation is given in "Astérix in Belgium" as to how Belgians fighting the invading Roman legions first did so. --Partnerfrance 21:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)]

II) The "french" in "french fries" referres to the fact that the potatoes are "frenched" (i.e.: sliced into strips) before frying them. AFAIK that is also why "french toast" has that "french accent" (see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French)

More needs to be emphasized on how "Freedom fries" remain symbolic of U.S. unity and resolve in the face of highly adversarial French policies and provocations, popularized by patriotic U.S. representatives Robert W. Ney and Walter B. Jones in 2003.
To resist and reject French hostility is to demonstrate a spirit of U.S. Patriotism. --64.9.37.66 7 March 2006
In fact, in France "french fries" are just called "Frites", and I suppose it the same in Belgium too. PS : I just corrected "pommmes de terre" to "pomme de terre" (litt. "potatoes from earth"). 17:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)83.204.62.209 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Slice and move[edit]

Much of this article is simply a reaction to the Iraq war and feels tacked-on and less than relevant. I suggest:

  • Moving relevent parts of the first half to Franco-American relations
  • Severely pruning the Iraq war bit.
  • Adding anti-French sentiment from other countries. England to begin with, Europe generally (distrust of French continental hegomony in the 18th and early 19th centuries etc.) and finally former French colonies. The anti-French sentiment in the U.S. could of course remain, but be made much shorter.
  • Finally, re-naming the article Anti-French sentiment.

To be fair, I think a Francophilia article is also justified. French fashion and culture has had an enormous impact after all, particularly on other Europeans. I'm not up for this at the moment but someone should attempt it. This article is hard to justify as it stands. Marskell 06:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree. The swell of anti-French sentiment in the United States during this last decade was a marked, unique phenomenon, and warrants its own article. That many media personalities and politicians made deliberate efforts to exacerbate this phenomenon as it developed further evidences its unique status as an event, political effort, and noticable shift in public opinion.
Anon, doesn't strike you as silly to have Franco-American relations and this one? And, as has been pointed out, you could justiy a bunch of dubious x-anti-y articles based on this. A logical loop here: either the anti-French sentiment involved is unique to the U.S. in which case Franco-American relations ought to suffice or it is not unique to the U.S. and this it should be altered and retitled Anti-French sentiment. In either case this article is unnecessary. Marskell 18:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep and improve[edit]

Marskell: I disagree, although anti-french sentiments exist in other countries, the american francophobia is unique and very disturbing. The french opposition to american policies on irak was not an isolated position. Many other countries such as germany or russia (former foes) opposed. Nevertheless, american hatred was focussed on france (a longtime ally). Why? This article is definitely justified!

I agree, it's an interesting subject. There are some things that distinguish French opposition to the Iraq War from others. France plays, or tries to play, a leadership role. French opposition was more active and effective than others. For example, when the U.S. was lobbying UN Security Council members for support, France was counter-lobbying. Essentially, France is disliked in the U.S. because France behaves much the same way as the U.S. behaves - they take a position and expect other countries to fall in line. Whether this is leadership or arrogance depends on your point of view. Mirror Vax 21:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
As the "why" is concerned, it would be wise to remind the Condoleezza Rice's "Punish France, ignore Germany, and forgive Russia!". It started the anti-French campaign in USA.--DanDx (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs some more items[edit]

-- In 2001 the French ambassador to London called Israel "that shitty little country", which may explain some of the beliefs about French anti-Semitism.

Note [2007]: in French such a reference is not done on the person/country but on the mess that it creates. Litteral translation into English is a counter sense.

-- "Horrifying Fraud", a French book alleging that September 11 was faked by the Americans, was a bestseller in France. This is one source of beliefs about anti-American French attitudes. Ken Arromdee 21:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you have sources for your first claim? Is there a context?

Has anyone proved finally what really happened on 9/11? Has anyone arrested Bin Laden? Oh, shall we just forget the whole WMD thing or are you going to revert that the french hid them?

"colonies"[edit]

France does have remaining overseas territories, which are represented at a national level and have varying levels of autonomy. The French territory which wants independance most is, in fact, Corsica, which few would consider a "colony".

I believe this argument to have been added in bad faith but again, maybe some people really give it credit. Any clue whether this is a significant criticism of France among the anti-French Americans? Or should we remove it?Jules LT 16:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

the word "colonies" is certainly inappropriate and should be changed to "overseas territories" or at least "former colonies". Using the word "colonies" does denote a certain criticism (-> not neutral…), or at least misinformation, which has no place here.

merger[edit]

I have added the merger tag to this article. I think fully half of this could be dropped or compressed and the rest moved Franco-American relations. Marskell 17:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite, move, merger[edit]

I don't like the title (and angle) of this article - it's too specific. 'US Anti French sentiments'... well, I could write a "Denmark anti France" article, "Denmark anti US" article or "Denmark anti Germany" article for that matter. I'm sure pretty much any country has negative feelings towards bordering countries, previous enemies or just dominant cultures to some degree.

I recognize that this is a big deal in the US and France - and I do have some insights - but I do believe France/US should only be used as an example in a "Cultural Friction" article. Really, we're going to end up with 600 articles about AfricaCountry vs. AfricaCountry, 300 BalkanCountry vs. BalkanCountry articles and so forth - extent to Asia and Middle East and we're going to a a POV hell like never before... How many articles are we going to have about Israel alone?

In addition - an article discussing cultural friction with a specific country but not other countries is subjective by nature. Where's the "Anti-Iraq sentiment in the United States" artile? Is the cultural friction between America and France more important than the friction between North Korea/US or Iran/US?

Last but not least, how do we determine how much bad sentiment is needed to proclaim cultural friction between 2 countries as a fact in this encyclopedia? Celcius 00:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be something like "anti-frenchism", but nobody uses that term... what is the name for people hating the french? Anti-Polinism is the sort of article title we should be shooting for. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I just looked at Anti-Polinism and think its a neologism that shouldn't be included here; the second paragraph admits as much. If anything I'd point back to Anti-American sentiment. It's been re-worked extensively and come out looking good. Anyhow, a consesus does seem to be emerging this page should be re-worked. Simply Anti-French sentiment would be fine. Marskell 08:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine w Anti-French sentiment, but whatever we use, it should be possible for the reader to guess what it is ;). ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 11:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've copied this entire article to User:Marskell/Anti-French sentiment to work on it properly. To-do:
  • Drop parts that are redundant given Franco-American relations and move to F-A relations anything that better fits there.
  • Add British Anti-French sentiment.
  • Add general negative European attitudes, specifically in 1648, Louis XIV's reign, French Revolution and Napoleanic era.
  • Add colonial anti-French attitudes.
  • Add present negative European attitudes toward France.
This doesn't have to be enormous. Point-form in the present style of Criticisms of the United States section on the Anti-American sentiment page will do.
As for the final name of the page, Francophobia is perhaps most appropriate. It (and Gallophobia) are used quite readily academically. Marskell 12:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

what would perhaps be useful, for the sake of impartiality, would be an "Anti-american sentiment in France/'Old Europe'".

There is nothing in France corresponding to francophobia in USA. Bush-bashing, neocons-bashing or political criticism, why not! But not that level of hatred against French just because they are French! Just goggle "French" for a try! DanDx (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Options for new article title[edit]

I say we go w francophobia, as it has the most google hits, and besides, I've actually heard of it ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Woah, I spoke way too soon,

But it's an adjective (or at least "adjectival") and thus I don't think right for an article. "See my Anti-French website..." "His Anti-French comments..." "Salad is also known as the 'Anti-French fry...'" :). Ah well, let's edit the article and continue the debate. Marskell 16:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I think Francophobia is NPOV: it's meant to emphasize its irrationality as phobias are irrational fears. I'd go for Anti-French sentiment.Jules LT 18:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't evolve, mutate![edit]

This is to say that I think there certainly should be an "Anti-French sentiment" article and that I don't think at all that it should be based on a reshaping of this one, for two main reasons:

  • I think the structure of the article would be different and unsuitable things inherited from here would remain.
  • The "Anti-French sentiment in the United States" is absolutely entitled to exist, just not as an article as big as Franco-American relations. I personally don't think this is such an important and peculiar thing, but it is notable and noted.

I think we should put all the relevant infos from here that aren't in Franco-American relations where they belong and start a new comprehensive Anti-French sentiment article and put there all consequently remove from here all that is not peculiar to the United States. Then, and as thing s go along, things that don't need to be here anymore will naturally be deleted, don't you think?

My idea would be to sort the Anti-French sentiment article by type of anti-Frenchism; that would be something like:

  • General stereotypes and accusations of arrogance (the main accusation I hear all the time, and often justified, too).
  • the Franco-English rivalry (I couldn't find an article on Franco-English relations, even on the French wikipedia! This relationship is soooo much more complex and eventful than that of France and the US, I can't understand... Or maybe I'm not so good at searching in wikipedia; I disbelievingly hope that's what it is. Eventually, I expect such an article to take most of this section out)
  • colonialism
  • the revolution
  • Napoleon
  • the Iraq war's special case

I think I read somewhere that a study asked people all over Europe how they would describe the people of each other European country. It appears the French got only negative adjectives from everyone, although not always the same ones. Also, the French and English gave each other nearly the same adjectives, all negative, again. I've got to find that study again, but in any case I think this justifies entirely making

By the way, I'm French and I'm proud of my country. Only sometimes not of its denizens (including myself).Jules LT 18:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I found again where I say that study: the "Europe unites in hatred of French" link at the bottom of this very article.Jules LT 21:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, if you are willing to do so much work. I am like to have a french editor helping here. I myself am american, and I can say that many people feel safe to insult the french, when jokes of blacks or others would seem impolite. I am glad of your ideas, and glad to help. Tasks you can do 23:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I already have worked quite a bit starting the Anti-French sentiment article. I am not willing to do so much work alone, though, so I could use some help. Also, I think people feel free to make fun of French people simply because there aren't that many of them in the US, so they won't know. Also, it's easier making a caricature when you can't compare it to the facts. I know that's why I came to the US: I wanted to see the real thing.Jules LT 17:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Francophobia is now UP[edit]

Get busy here: Francophobia. Thanks a lot :-)

Rest of the discussion moved where it belongs: Talk:Francophobia. Jules LT 20:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Pardon my French[edit]

Does anyone here want to give an opinion on Pardon my French? Should it be expanded or merged with Francophobia? - Tεxτurε 17:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, people looking up the expression will certainly appreciate finding the meaning and history without browsing through a large article that has little to do with popular language. And the details are nice but would be out of place in Francophobia. Some info, like the "French disease", would be welcome in there, though. Probably somewhere in a reformed version of the "stereotypes" section, which I think nobody is happy with as it is. Jules LT 18:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Resorting[edit]

The whole article is a mess. The content is alright (perhaps somewhat bowdlerized, i.e. some of the most egregious anti-French claims have been removed), but it needs to be better sorted. David.Monniaux 17:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is still a mess. It mostly talks about anti-French sentiment raised by the US invasion of Iraq (but everything in Wikipedia is soooo five minutes ago), but in the middle of that brings up a 1995 Simpsons episode. Worse, the article fails to put its subject in context by pointing out at the beginning that the US and France have enjoyed excellent diplomatic and cultural relations thruout their history and that anti-French sentiment is a persistent but minor aspect. --Tysto 00:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of the word patriotic[edit]

In the statement "Among many patriotic papers this has had little or no affect on anti-french sentiments." it is not clear what is meant by the phrase "patriotic papers". Are we talking about newspapers that supported the invasion of Iraq? If so then this makes the POV claim that newspapers that didn't support the war were unpatriotic. It should be rewritten to be more specific as to what newspapers we are talking about what using debatable terms like "patriotic". --Cab88 04:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Pretentious Diction[edit]

Changed "millennium archaic" to "millennia-old". The original phrase reeked of pretentious diction and looked as if someone simply looked in a thesaurus for a more "impressive" word, rather than using the one that made the most sense. 160.10.220.24 17:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A couple of edits[edit]

I added a quote from de Gaulle: the astounding crudeness of his public statements did at least as much damage to French prestige as his policies. Also removed the liberal/conservative assertion. It's unsourced and facile. Michael Moore's travel to Cannes to accept a filmmaking award is no more a liberal endorsement of France than an American economist's travel to Stockholm to accept a Nobel Prize could be called a conservative endorsement of Sweden. Durova 16:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


In a larger sense, this article suffers from a serious lack of focus. It pays too much attention to official international politics, which often runs counter to public sentiment. Durova 16:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


Three more quotes do something to address the slightly addressed issue that is central to this article: is anti-French sentiment in the United States mere jingoism or legitimate criticism? I've added Mark Twain, Howard Stern, and a congressional resolution. The article needs more work than I have time to give it. Durova 17:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-French sentiments, or Anti-Americanism, or Antisemitism, etc. cannot be legitimated. It can be explained by perceptions that may find support in prejudices or in legitimate criticisms. The objective of such an article is not to discuss the legitimacy of each of those criticisms. I fail to understand how those quotes will help to address this "issue" anyway, since they are just expressing prejudiced point of views. Tocquevil 10:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

An addition[edit]

The De Villepin's speech at the UN might be relevant. In it, he says that France has not forgotten the sacrifices of americans soldiers in WWII, will never do, etc. It could be nice counterpoint.

There is no need for counterpoints in this article, which is about anti-french sentiment in the united states. The list of critics listed in this article are always presented as one point of view in accordance with the topic and which are not necessary true. Neutrality doens't mean adding counterpoint to everything that is said, but only means presenting things as a point of view in regard to the topic ;)

United States Pathology[edit]

Surely this article is about unconscious United States arrogances more than French arrogances. Should I change the title to "United States Pathology and France"? And shouldn't there be a section dissecting the underlying projections? --Geronimo20

That suggestion is at odds with WP:NPOV. People in the United States do have some legitimate gripes against France, as I've illustrated in my contributions to this page. I won't speculate on how much of this sentiment is justified. The article does have POV problems. The solution is to balance the article and add references. Durova 22:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-French Sentiment[edit]

Anti-French sentiment in the United States represents an appropriate reaction towards the adversarial, anti-American, and dangerously provocative government, culture, and people of France. The French people and their elected government have consistently undermined, undercut, and obstructed U.S. Foreign Policy.

Anti-Americanism in France has recently reached a crescendo with:

1. Joint Franco-Russian and Franco-Chinese military exercises

2. Efforts by the French government to sell high technology weapons to the Chinese military for potential use against U.S. Troops in the defense of Taiwan

3. A track record of aiding and abetting terror-sponsoring regimes such as Syria, Iran, and Iraq

As a consequence of these and other adversarial and highly provocative French policies towards the U.S., French President Jacques Chirac is the only major world leader not to have been invited to Washington, D.C. in over 6 years. Another ominous development is the U.S. defense establishment sharply limiting military access and cooperation with the French armed forces.

FRANCOPHOBIA

Francophobia, also known as Anti-French sentiment,represents an appropriate reaction towards the adversarial, radically-Socialist, and dangerously provocative government, culture, and people of France. The French people and their elected government have consistently undermined, undercut, and obstructed the foreign policy of its former allies.

Anti-Western policy in France has recently reached a crescendo with:

1. Joint Franco-Russian and Franco-Chinese military exercises

2. Efforts by the French government to sell high technology weapons to the Chinese military for potential use against U.S. Troops in the defense of Taiwan

3. A track record of aiding and abetting terror-sponsoring regimes such as Syria, Iran, and Iraq

As a consequence of these and other adversarial and highly provocative French policies towards the U.S., French President Jacques Chirac is the only major world leader not to have been invited to Washington, D.C. in over 6 years. Another ominous development is the U.S. defense establishment sharply limiting military access and cooperation with the French armed forces.

Although those prejudices are widespread today, Francophobia has existed for centuries and adopted very different forms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.30.224.101 (talkcontribs) 05:35, 10 March 2006. --Mal 06:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That may be one point of view. Another is that the Americans resent that the French were right and George Bush was wrong about invading Iraq, and that it is easier to vent their hostility against France than to face their own insecurities, and that they picked on France because they didn't have the courage to antagonize Russia, China or Germany. This is a phenomenon of the mass hysteria that US politicians have been cultivating, and the sooner the Americans recover from it, the better this planet will be off. Peter Grey 07:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This article must take a non-partisan, fair and balanced approach.
The majority of Americans believe France has been consistently adversarial, highly antagonistic, and dangerously provocative to the U.S. and its strategic foreign policy interests.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.44.174.185 (talkcontribs) 14:46, 13 March 2006
  • Normal disagreements and rivalries are not the same as the national temper tantrum the US went through. Peter Grey 17:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Countries have argued with each other for ages, and part of that has been anti-(insert-current-national-enemy-here) sentiment. Anti-French hasn't been the first, nor will it be the last, type of hostility a country shows to another one. Mostly what the government does is brainwash its inhabitants, so no-one objects when it (the government) committs atricious acts of violence against (insert-national-enemy-here). Shouldn't surprise us too much, it's all happened before. -Chewbacca 08:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Veto vs. No vote[edit]

I removed the statement that French and Russian opposition was distinguished by France's threatened use of the "veto" as opposed to Russia's "no". (In the 2003 Iraq War section.) In reality, there is no distinction between the two. A resolution fails in the event of a negative (no) vote by any permanent member. See UN Security Council Veto Power. If you have a source showing that Russia would have abstained from a further Iraq resolution rather than voting against it, please include that information in this part of the article. AidanBC 20:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

While technically correct, this is realistically inaccurate. Permanent members can--and frequently do--abstain to oppose a resolution they don't support. I didn't bother putting the comment back in becuase this article is so broken it needs a complete overhaul anyway, but there is a legitimate distinction between France's veto threat and Russia's desire to not support it.--Bibliophylax 21:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark Twain[edit]

This article barely touches on Twain's apparent francophobia. Why exactly was Mark Twain so hard on the French?

see http://www.twainquotes.com/French.html
Some of his comments aren't witty and cross the line into direct racism e.g. "French are the connecting link between man & the monkey."

Bwithh 02:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Views of the French military[edit]

I'd rather just propose the above article for deletion, but I predict that the masses will vote for merging instead, so I've put a merger tags on, then the article can be merged with this article, and hopefully, edited beyond recognition. Bwithh 02:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Currently it only talks about US views, but hopefully the article will describe views from other countries, such as Rwanda and New Zealand. What are "the masses"? Why do you hope it gets edited beyond recognition? Thanks,

Andjam 03:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"The masses" are the anti-deletionist majority on wikipedia. This article originally started out as a spinoff of multiple attempts by people (not you) to insert "witty" US-centric anti-french views into the military history of france article, which is why I said I'd like to see it edited beyond recognition. Why New Zealand incidentally? because of Rainbow Warriorand French nuclear testing? That is more accurately the French intelligence services and French strategic nuclear weapons policy than the military exactly Bwithh 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bwithh, I sincerely request that you do not merge these article. I am actually thinking about making it a featured article. It is a fascinating topic really.UberCryxic 04:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Since its you asking, UberCryxic, okay. But the article really needs to have significant views from outside the US. Bwithh 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

France's Role in the European Union[edit]

Although mentioned in passing throughout the article, there is no one section about France's role in the European Union. Having never been to Europe, I don't know first hand the situation there, but most Americans see France's dominating role in the EU as paradoxical. The idea of the EU (if carried out to its fullest original intentions as I understand them) would create a competitive diplomatic, economic, and scientific force that would challenge the United States's dominance. (Many Americans view this as a good thing that can only stimulate creativity and accelerate technological progress.) But France's insistance on a privileged position within the EU (such as its sense of entitlement to extravagant farm subsidies) cripple the continent's progress. Even though EU issues very rarely effect Americans directly, most who follow topic resent France's EU policy and actions because they're seen as protectionist and socialistic. Also, something about the explicit joy that many Americans expressed when the referendums on the EU constitution failed in France might be something to mention. I don't know enough about these issues to make any sort of contribution to the article, but I would like someone to explore them.--Cassmus 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but like you said, you've never been to quaint-old-Europe (yes we even take credit cards and sell Coca-cola), and I guess you get your information from the outstanding "Free" American press. In case you dodn't realise, many EU country's parliaments are socialist (ooo look out a commie pinko bastard!) - ergo the political swing. If American's were joyful over the referendums, then God help us all - the country that professes freedom across the globe - we probably have more freedom here - at least our voices are heard by our respective governments.

This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia[edit]

Much of this article has the worst writing and I've seen on Wikipedia. In improving the article, I would suggest recruiting some, you know, actual French users to help; or is that too scandalous? Bwithh 00:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This is about anti-French sentiment in the United States. "Actual French users" who aren't in the United States would be no more likely to know about that than anyone else. Ken Arromdee 05:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
that's not true. France is the most popular tourism destination, or one of the most popular destinations in the world. Certainly the French felt the effects of reduced tourism due to Anti-French sentiment in the US - hence the Woody Allen campaign which was sponsored by the French Tourism board. Also, obviously they would have heard about Freedom Fries and calls for trade boycotts and such - they do have newspapers and international TV news etc! Also they are more likely to be interested in these stories then anyone else in the world Bwithh 15:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article is attempting to justify racist prejudices towards the French under the pretext of describing it. The process is rather gross, and it seems that it is also past its date (I assume that most of these anti-french sentiments arose during the war- the gulf one, that is.

Naming a street after Mumia happened just this week, not during the war. Ken Arromdee 15:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this street naming thing happened just this week. Thus, it can hardly qualify as a "Popular Anti-French allegation", unless you think that this section of the article is just there so that Francophobes can justify their phobia with every news that fit their agenda. Tocquevil 18:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
This why I removed it. Then Zoe restored it, and I prefer to keep it because I think it supports my point below.
This is a catch-22. When France has done something a while back, it should be removed because it's "past its date". But when France has done something recently, it should be removed because it's too recent to count.
This is where you have a bias. You think this article is all about "what France has done" to justify Francophobia. The more you find, the happier you are. There are sites for that, such as Fuckfrance. Tocquevil 18:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
If you really doubt that naming a street after Mumia is a "popular anti-French allegation," it isn't hard to find anti-French blogs that reference it: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8411

http://www.fuckfrance.com/topic/2050155/1/France/Free-Mumia-Free-Zacharias-Paris-suburb-renames-street-for-cop-killer-Mumia.html http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005200.htm

And here's one from National Review. which is a national magazine: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/goldblatt200310150931.asp
Just because something is recent doesn't disqualify it from being a "popular anti-French allegation". News travels fast these days. Ken Arromdee 16:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, this is exactly my point: those sites are Francophobe sites that will take every news coming from France with a huge bias to try to justify their hatred. This is a process of self-reinforcement of an existing prejudice. It does nothing to explain why the prejudice started in the first place. If you want that every new piece of hatred coming from those sites appear in the Wikipedia article, then you fall under the criticism made above that "this article is attempting to justify racist prejudices towards the French under the pretext of describing it".
Oh and fuckfrance is already in the links section. So leave it where it is, in the links.Tocquevil 18:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't want anything from those sites in the Wikipedia article. I only mentioned them to support my statement that people do in fact hate France over the Mumia incident, since you were denying that. Ken Arromdee 21:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I deny that people - except maybe the widow - hate France just for this reason. This reason is used as self-reinforcement of an existing prejudice, and the news has been primarily vehiculed by prejudiced newspapers and web sites for an already prejudiced readership. Wikipedia would do a better job if it could help debunking this process instead of being complicit with it. Tocquevil 09:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
If people claim to hate France because of certain reasons, you have to take them at their word. You can't claim that their real reasons are prejudice and that their stated reasons aren't their real reasons. Ken Arromdee 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Not only do I think that we can, but I think that we must. This article should debunk prejudice instead of legitimating it. Tocquevil 21:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the entire section "popular Anti-French allegations" be removed. A similar section has been removed from the Francophobia article. It would make much more sense to replace it by a list of anti-french acts and statements, with the circumstances surrounding those acts and statements. For instance, boycott call by Ed Koch, or commercial from Subway likening french with chicken. And yes, participation of "actual French users" would make sense since they are at the receiving end of those acts and statements. Tocquevil 11:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is about anti-French sentiment. Not all sentiment is accompanied by acts and statements. Ken Arromdee 16:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)~
Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is not Fuckfrance. Here, there are rules to avoid bias, POV, weasel words and hate speech. This is why there is a link to Fuckfrance: all the anti-french sentiment people like you want to read is just one click away.Tocquevil 18:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you get it.

The point of that section is to give a list of things that France has done that are pointed to by France-haters.

The Mumia street is one of those things.

That isn't "bias", "POV", "weasel words", or "hate speech". It's writing the subject of the article. If the article is about people hating France, giving a list of reasons that are used by France-haters is not POV or anything else you describe. An article about criticism of anything must include the criticism. Ken Arromdee 21:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it may include examples of the most significant criticisms, but with references and with a criticism of the criticism (See the section called Criticism of Anti-Americanism in the Anti-Americanism article). Othervise, it's a kind of endorsement of the criticism, which is the result of a biased and POV approach. And it doesn't need to be exhaustive. For exhaustivity, the reader can go to the links.Tocquevil 09:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
If you want to put in a criticism of the criticism, feel free. But don't take the criticism out. Ken Arromdee 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
"Weasel Words" is a term referring to the use of phrases like "Many people say", "It is widely regarded that", "It is a common belief that" without any supporting references.
If it'll make you happy, I can add the above links to the article, demonstrating that people actually do hold such beliefs. This would take care of your complaint about weasel words. Do you wish me to do this? Ken Arromdee 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
POV issue is due to the imbalance of perspective in the article's description of/commentary on the anti-French sentiments, and is not related to the anti-French sentiments themselves. Bwithh 09:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I am ok with a page on anti-french sentiments in the US, albeit so far I have mostly found pro-French people in the US, and I have a sense that the Anti-American sentiments article is more about how absurd and irrational anti-americanism can be in general... It therefore seems to be double standard: for instance, the article does not mention that the Mumia case is controversial in the US as well, it tends to assume that a marginal town in the suburbs of Paris, headed by communists, anti-American politicians, are representative of France in general, and terefore justify these xenophobic prejudices. No one mentions that the support committee for Mumia thanked them for their gesture. This article looks more like a (rather stale) neocon manifesto than an informative, neutral wiki article. The so-called "reasons" should not be disclosed without an evaluation (otherwise it is leading to the belief that they are true)

Fabrice252, I agree with you 100%. Just like the Anti-americanism and the Anti-semitism articles, this article about Anti-French sentiments should focus more on how absurd and irrational prejudices are, and how they are reinforced by some biased main stream media and web sites.Tocquevil 09:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, stating that prejudices are absurd (or even that opposition to France *is* a prejudice) is a POV and can't be included without a source. Ken Arromdee 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
By definition, prejudices ARE absurd and irrational: "Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion." Stating that something is a prejudice is of course a POV, unless it is supported by facts and sources. I didn't pretend the opposite. Opposition to France is of course not a prejudice, but can be motivated by prejudices, and this is what this article should focus more on. Tocquevil 08:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"POV issue is due to the imbalance of perspective in the article's description of/commentary on the anti-French sentiments, and is not related to the anti-French sentiments themselves. Bwithh"

I think that at least Tocquevil has just been throwing as many charges at the section as he can in the hope that one will stick. So far, I've seen:

  • It contains "weasel words", claiming that people hold these opinions without saying who. (Response: to correct this, I could refer to anti-French sources to demonstrate that people do hold these opinions. But I suspect nobody really wants this.)
Wrong. It's actually Bwitth, not me that made this comment about weasel words: "Weasel Words" is a term referring to the use of phrases like "Many people say", "It is widely regarded that", "It is a common belief that" without any supporting references.". But I agree with him. Tocquevil 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No reasons should be given for why people hate France, because old reasons are "past their date" but new reasons are too recent. (Response: This is a catch-22.)
Wrong again. It's Bwitth that made the comment about old reasons being "past their date". Tocquevil 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody significant hates France for the reasons given in the section because their real reason is prejudice and their stated reason is not their real one. (Response: You have to take people at their word about their own opinions.)
This article should debunk prejudice and bias instead of legitimating it under the pretext of letting people express their -obviously prejudiced- opinions.Tocquevil 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's hate speech (do I need to respond to this one?)
I said Fuckfrance allows hate speech, and by giving room in the article to everything that appears in Fuckfrance -or similar websites- you don't respect Wikipedia's rules. Tocquevil 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article must focus on how irrational anti-French prejudices are. (Response: For the article to assume that most anti-French sentiment is the result of prejudice even when anti-French people themselves claim otherwise is a POV. You could quote someone's opinion stating that anti-French sentiment is really prejudice, but you can't base the entire article around it.)
You can't expect prejudiced people -those who get their news by reading Fuckfrance etc...-to acknowledge that they are indeed prejudiced. Debunking prejudices is not a POV. For instance, it someone says "I don't like the french cause they named a street after Munia, I know this for sure since I read it in Fuckfrance", the guy is clearly prejudiced. Who is reading Fuckfrance, apart from people that just want to feed their prejudiced hatred against France? Tocquevil 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I find your own complaint to be more reasonable, but I still disagree. It's true that there are a lot of reasons in that section, and that may seem imbalanced, but on the other hand, giving few reasons is imbalanced in the other direction--it tries to suggest the POV "anti-French sentiment is not based on reasons; it is just prejudice". When one side claims the other side has no reasons, it becomes more important to include many reasons. If you think the reasons are bad ones, find someone who responded to one of them and add the response. Ken Arromdee 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is simply not right to promote a hate and racist speech that has supposedly good reasons to be like that, because a particular race, people, or group of people, have, in the view of some uninformed, prejudiced country bumpkin, a particular trait (or because they should be inherently evil or presumably against you or what you stand for). This is true for anti-French sentiments (even though you stand for the Republican party), antiamerican sentiments (even though you are a stalinist) or antisemitism (even though you belong to the PLO or to some Nazi Party). It is ok to describe anti-sthg sentiments, provided you do not justify them with "good reasons" to hate a particular group or community of people. Please show some respect.

Once again, I agree with you Fabrice252. Tocquevil 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not accept the idea that the reasons why people hate France should not be included. To say that people hate France because of prejudice, when they claim that it is not prejudice but in fact they have reasons, is a POV. If they claim to have reasons, these reasons should be given. Ken Arromdee 13:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

These reasons can be included, provided they are evaluated: most of the ideas and reasons exposed in this article are self-demonstrating, false, and usually presented in a manipulative way. It looks clearly like the whole point of this article is to say that (1)Everyone in the US hates the French (which is absolutely false, manipulative, and filled with racism), and that (2) they have some very good reason to be hating the French, who indeed are really evil.

This article is a complete embarrasment to Wikipedia and should be deleted. No wonder the world hates Americans, they are so small minded and biggoted. I think one word sums up Americans - ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is an important document and it should be retained. It documents compelling evidence of the profound insanity that now sloshes around the United States. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

French point of view[edit]

I apologize for the mistakes i'm gonna make. I'm french, and i'm just amazed. Where is the neutral point of view? Nearly each line we can notice something whis is not neutral. NPOV is one of the major rule on wikipedia, is this article an exeption? More than NPOV, it's just amazing how the History is turned in the advantages of american people. I've been in USA, when i read this article is just like we are hated. But we aren't. I've been more than well welcomed. And i've never felt that being french was a "fault". When i read this article, i just wanna do one things, send it to deletion... i'm sorry, but this is an amazing article. I do agree that some americans have anti franch sentiments in USA, but it's not that rude... well i don't think so. And a large part of this article is insulting, or had value judgment (jugement de valeur)... I really can't stand this, i know, i'm french so my POV is non-neutral at all BUT who wrote this article? Let me bet, most of them were americans, if you want to make an article against french people go on fox news, they will be glad. BUT here is Wikipedia. NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. In this article we should say "American People with Anti French Sentiments" point of view. Please work on this article, the stub about the anti american sentiment in france HAVE TO be develloped, as the pro french sentiment...Schiste 06:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason that you've been in the USA without being hated is that Americans know very well the differnece between hating you as a person and hating the things your government does or other people in your country do. Ken Arromdee 13:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This last explanation does not really match the total confusion between French government and French people in the article (and in the title as well); if American people can make the difference between the French and what their government does, I wonder why the title of the article is not Anti-French government sentiment in the US.

Because it's not just against the French government, it's against some of the people too. This is still different than "all the people", of course, so Americans wouldn't hate you as a person just because some other people in your country bought "Horrifying Fraud". Ken Arromdee 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are still trying to justify racist beliefs behind a nice, rationalising speech. This article should be deleted, because its premises are racist and not objective, but rather trying to justify the unjustifiable (i.e. No, Americans do not hate the French out of ignorance or stupidity, but because the French deserve to be hated).

Ken Arromdee, actually I met on internet some american people and they have been really rude with cause i was french, and when i ask 'em why, no answers. You speak about government, i'm sorry but this is just amazing. What about yours? Actually i do not agree with mine but what about american one? The thing is i never seen a good argumentations answering "why do you hate france and french people?" One of the answer was "you are too proud"... yeah i assume it, i'm really proud of the 2000years of history of my country, i'm proud of my gastronomy and of the landscapes. But i think most people around the earth feel the same. My point of view, and i might be wrong, is that American don't like countries who are trying not to be like USA. In fact if we don't follow your way of life we deserve hate. About French hating American people, most of theme are "hating" "you" because you are allways acting as the heros, the ones who are gonne save the world... and lieing about the informations you have, and about your past. This article HAS TO exist, really, but if it's written in a neutral point of view it's gonna be deleted. I'll make a version of this article as neutral as i can. I do respect every people as long as they respect me, but you know seeing french fries being renamed Freedom fries was amazing and so pueril (children acting?) Schiste 22:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"Freedom Fries" was a single action done in a single place. You talk as if it was actually common. Ken Arromdee 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe one place, but what place ! The House of Representatives ! Such an attitude would be difficultly possible in french Chambre des députés...
This article is not saying that the French deserve to be hated; it is listing common reasons why some people do. Do you think that rewriting this page to talk about how "ignorant and stupid" you percieve Americans to be is really a good solution for an article having trouble with NPOV? You may view Anti-French sentiment as wrong or prejudiced, but so is racism and that has an article about it. If you have a problem with something in the article, say what's wrong and how you would like to fix it! Just complaining is not going to create a better wikipedia. --Zagsa 01:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me be clearer:(1) I did not want to say that Americans were stupid and ignorant, but, rather, that Americans who were anti-french were so out of stupidity and ignorance (and so are any nationals of any countries who express pride in their racist beliefs)-(2) What is wrond is clear enough: this article is not about an analysis and objective presentation of anti-french sentiments in the US (which is reasonably interesting) but rather about why it is normal for people in the US to hate the French (which is racist). Therefore thsi article shoudl be either seriously amended or suppressed.

Racism[edit]

I think many people are missing the point Anti-French sentiment is, in fact, racism. Racism is defined by the UN as any distinction or prejudicial view based on "race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin." This article tries to validate racism against the French people by ennumerating supposed "wrongs" of the French people, culture, or government. I don't think anyone would stand for an article on Anti-black sentiment that said that the horrid treatment of this population is deserved for some reason or another. The section on the Iraqi war is particularly inflammatory. Any article that describes a prejudice should not be trying to justify that prejudice. It's quite disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AP0820 (talkcontribs)

I think you're making this out to be a little more extreme than it is. Changing menu names and attempting boycotts were done to send a political message (an immature one might I add) but didn't really hurt anyone here in America, therefor doesn't count as prejudicial acts. I skimmed through the Iraq section and found nothing particularly inflammatory about it. The reasons given are meant to be informative to the reader, not to justify the claims. If you find something to be incorrect, or showing a specific POV, you can discuss it here or {{be bold}}, just be sure to keep a NPOV. --Roccyraccoon 20:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Unsigned on this one. This seems to be an article which attempts to justify Racism, a sort of "100 reasons why the US hates France." I look forward to the next installment, "100 reasons why the US hates black people", or even "100 reasons why the US hates the middle East", and who can forget "100 reasons why the US hates the far East". Will we ever see "100 reasons why the US hates Judaism", as we all know the US to be a fine example of racial tolerance??? Paul-b4 15:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The present article is not markedly different in tone from the Anti-Americanism article or other similar articles on antagonism toward a particular nation. These articles attempt to delve into the reasons behind the development of prejudices, which some mistake as excusing the prejudices. If we remove all such explanations then the article is left with little more than "there are people who don't like (whoever), and we know that all such broad prejudices are unjustifiable", end of article. The anti-(whoever) articles are difficult in that they tend to be polarizing and I sometimes wonder if they are inherently unsuited to the Wikipedia model. These articles very often lapse into struggles between those who share opposition to the nation in question and those who want to remove or explain away criticism of the nation in question. Raymond Arritt 17:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Raymond arritt, while what you wrote is generaly speaking right, this article is, in fact, slightly biased. For instance, I do not approve your last edit : "While this anti-French sentiment should not be confused with rational criticism of French government, culture, and society, the distinction may not be clear in situations that do not fall in either extreme." replacing "This anti-French sentiment should not be confused with rational criticism of French government and society, though it may be fuelled by French government policies." That sort of edit blurs the line between a sentiment that is close to xenophobia and racism, and a rational criticism. There is nothing rational in anti french sentiments, and the distinction should be clearly made -or else you're legitimating these sentiments. Gedefr 19:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I blurred the line, and deliberately so. My point is that not everything is black and white and some things fall into a gray area. At one extreme we have the "cheese eating surrender monkey" stuff, which clearly is prejudiced. At the other extreme we have academic treatises on subjects like increasingly divergent interests of the U.S. and France after World War II, which obviously is objective criticism and not prejudice. But my wording in the intro is meant to acknowledge that not everything falls into one of these extremes. Take for example a statement that "France is no longer an ally of the United States." Is that a francophobic statement? Some have argued that it is. Others have said that it is an objective assessment. My answer is, "it depends." In some cases the statement may be in the context of a tirade about the dirty French. In other cases it could be in the context of a discussion of concrete incidents such as de Gaulle's ejection of NATO, the Operation El Dorado Canyon affair, and so on, concluding that on balance France and the U.S. are not allies. In the latter case I would argue that while the statement is not correct, it is not based in prejudice. To summarize, I propose that there is a broad range between the extremes that depends on context and nuance, and that it is overly simplistic to insist that everything be treated as black (prejudiced) or white (not prejudiced). Raymond Arritt 19:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
But this article is about anti-french sentiments in the US -that is francophobia in the US. It has to focus on these hate feelings, and not on any assessment on the US/France international relationships. It's all about "surrender monkeys" and has nothing to do with an academic essay on "France is still an ally of the U.S ?" (answer : yes, by the way). But we've had this talk before - and I guess I won't convince you, and you are more stubborn than I am when it comes to edit this article :) Gedefr 21:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

FuckFrance.com[edit]

I would like to point out that the website www.fuckfrance.com is neither a racist nor xenophobic page, but a culturally most diverse internet news collection and discussion site. About 66% of its users reside in the Anglosphere ( UK, US, Australia etc. ), 33% of its members are frenchmen, dozens of others from other European countries like Italy or Germany. Some of the several thousand members may be prejudiced, racist, and so on - but FF.com is based on free speech, and no user is being banned for his convictions. However, the few users who are racist, xenophobic etc. face the permanent and relentless ridicule and dismissal of the majority of the users, who are mostly level-headed, tolerant and cosmopolitic. It's a free market of ideas, without restrictions - contrary to other internet discussion forums.

Then I kindly suggest this site be renamed CulturallyMostDiverseDiscussion.com Tocquevil 14:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, the name is inherently racist. Can you imagine the backlash one would get if they tried to post or defend 'FuckAmerica.com' somewhere?  :) Jachin 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Added:

Cut the PR stunt - The page is racist and filled with American NRA/neocon wannabes. The site is all about American teenagers (or adults with same mental capacity) criticizing Europe/Middle East/Asia. When someone criticize USA, they are banned for days or permbanned by rednecks, titled "moderators". Its a great place to learn new stuff, if your IQ is below 10, otherwise you will pretty much fell like Einstein in a kindergarten, which can be great i you want to boost your self esteem - make it quick though, the rednecks will permban you once they spot too many words not part of their vocabulary.

Daniel Bernard revisited[edit]

Tocquevil wrote: "This sentence has been contributed by several wikipedians. Please justify on the talk page why it should be removed." The sentence in question is, "While this was an isolated incident, widespread reporting brought the episode to prominence and reinforced the stereotype."

The sentence should be deleted because it is factually contentious and poorly written.

First, consider the assertion that it was an "isolated incident". If we allow the incident to be characterized as "isolated", NPOV standards require that we include evidence that it was not isolated. There have been several writers who have asserted anti-semitic bias is common amongst significant parts of the governing and intellectual classes within France, including some French commentators such as Bernard-Henri Lévy. (As the article notes later, the French population at large is definitely not anti-semitic.) We would then be in the position of an endless point-counterpoint to the effect "some have referred to this as an isolated incident; however other French writers have contended such feelings are common in certain French intellectual and political circles; yet French ambassador to the U.S. Jean-David Levitte, himself Jewish, has said there is no such bias; though on the other hand a New York newspaper provided evidence countering Levitte's response..." ad infinitum.

Second, the material is badly written. Consider the second part of the sentence, "widespread reporting brought the episode to prominence and reinforced the stereotype." "Widespread reporting brought the episode to prominence" is a classic example of redundancy (or more specifically, pleonasm). Add to this the fact that the previous sentence already made the point that this was a "widely-reported incident"!

So, there it is: a factually-contentious and badly written bit of material. It should be deleted. Raymond Arritt 03:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Something that is badly written should not be deleted. It should be rewritten. Regarding your first point, you argue that we should avoid endless point-counterpoint. This is perfectly fair, except when the net result is the absence of any counterpoint! Counterpoint is what this article is lacking. In many instances, it is just a list of francophobe statements, or a list of incidents that "justify" why people make francophobe statements. The Bernard incident is a typical example: it is presented to us as an evidence of french antisemitism, which is hardly the case. As a counterpoint, it should be noted that the cliché of french antisemitism, like all clichés, is based on some reality, but also on irrational generalization and self-reinforcement of existing prejudices. This was my point when I added the sentence "While this was an isolated incident - hardly evidence of anti-semitism of a whole population - widespread reporting significantly emphasised these allegations and reinforced the stereotype" that you removed later. I think this point is valid, if poorly written.
Regarding your assertion that we can argue that it is not an isolated incident since "There have been several writers who have asserted anti-semitic bias is common amongst significant parts of the governing and intellectual classes within France, including some French commentators such as Bernard-Henri Lévy." If this is the case, then we probably can find a better example of french anti-semitism "among governing and intellectual classes" than this overblown Bernard incident. A valid example might be hard to find though, unless we admit like BHL and Finkielkraut that criticizing Israel is automatically antisemitic. Tocquevil 10:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Tocquevil said: "it is presented to us as an evidence of french antisemitism, which is hardly the case."
Incorrect. It is presented as a catalyst for the "Alleged Anti-Semitism" (the title of the section!), which is the case. If it was not an isolated incident, then the article shouldn’t say it was. It’s that simple.
I know you want to make everything balanced, but I don’t think this particular sentence needs a counterpoint. It’s silly to point out that this is "hardly evidence of anti-semitism of a whole population". I think that’s understood. Give the reader a little credit, please. It’s also painfully redundant since the whole following paragraph talks about how the French population is indeed not anti-Semitic.
Your addition contributes nothing and should go.--Roccyraccoon 19:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Charles Enderlin[edit]

I see no POV in my edit. It just addresses the fact that this report that is considered by some as antisemitic (blaming the IDF for the killing of a Palestinian child) was actually made by a Jew, who is of French and Israeli nationality. That's interesting enough to mention. This statement has many sources. Just check the Charles Enderlin article on English Wikipedia or the one on French wikipedia fr:Charles Enderlin.Gedefr 12:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your material isn't necessarily POV but does read like it's grasping for an excuse, so it may not have the effect you intend. It also adds unnecessary detail to an issue that is minor in the context of the article - I follow Franco-American relations fairly closely, and have seen little discussion of the Muhammad al-Durrah incident in the US. A quick Google of Muhammad al-Durrah shows very few hits originating from the mainstream media in the US, confirming that this is not a major issue in "Anti-French sentiment in the United States." And there's already an article on Muhammad al-Durrah if anyone wants the details. Your edit should go; in fact the whole discussion of Muhammad al-Durrah could be deleted (or reduced to one short sentence with a link) at no loss. Raymond Arritt 13:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea of the place the Muhammad al-Durrah controversy had in the US mainstream media. If you think it should be deleted, I don't object. But if it is kept, I real do think that my edit should be left, as it put this accusation of antisemitism into perspective.Gedefr 13:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Searching for "Muhammad al-Durrah" is very sensitive to spelling. "Muhammad al-Durrah" produces 597 hits. "Mohammed al-dura" produces 47100. Ken Arromdee 17:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Even with the alternate spelling there are few hits in the US mainstream media. The only US-MSM citation in the top 10 or so hits is a piece in the Atlantic -- and the very first sentence of that article states "The name Mohammed al-Dura is barely known in the United States." So, we should delete the "Muhammad al-Durrah" material since it isn't germane to "Anti-French sentiment in the United States." Raymond Arritt 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You might have a point if the article was titled "Anti-French sentiment in the US mainstream media". It isn't. (Besides, using the top 10 hits is wrong. If you count the references in a fixed number of hits, that means that increasing the number of hits of other types will reduce the number of hits of the type you're looking for, without there actually being fewer of them.) Ken Arromdee 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, there's simply no evidence that the al-Durrah incident was a substantial contributor to "Anti-French sentiment in the United States." Indeed, as mentioned in the James Fallows article in the Atlantic, very few people in the U.S. have even heard of it. If we are going to catalog every single act that could possibly induce a perception of French anti-semitism -- even if it had no substantial effect on the issue at hand -- then the article will fall of its own weight. Raymond Arritt 17:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Over 40000 hits doesnt show that few people have heard of it. And searching for "France anti-semitism al-dura" produces 15800 hits; most of them are relevant. Ken Arromdee 22:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
A raw count of search hits is at best a dubious way of gauging relevance. ("France anti-semitism tractor" yields 37,900 hits and "France anti-semitism guitar" yields 95,600.) But this incident is important to you, so given the nature of Wikipedia it's pointless to argue further. I only ask that you help out an already over-long article by rewriting your material to make it clear and concise. Raymond Arritt 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


"Francophobia"[edit]

My edit does not deal with francophobia, as a general phenomenon, but with francophobia in the US only. It gives common sociological explanations of anti french sentiments in the US, which is precisely what this article is all about. Gedefr 01:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. Is francophobia identical with "anti-French sentiment"? The two article headers imply they are different: the Francophobia article defines its subject as "consistent hostility toward the government, culture, history, or people of France or the Francophonie" whereas the Anti-French sentiment in the United States article cites "a reaction towards the perceived adversarial and anti-American government, culture, and people of France." It seems rather like the distinction between anti-semitism on the one hand and criticism of Israeli policies on the other, i.e., reflexive and irrational prejudice versus geopolitical and cultural disagreement. I would argue that it is useful to keep the two topics as distinct as possible while recognizing that there may be gray areas between. Raymond Arritt 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, you are joking ! Would you call "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" and all the other "Popular anti-French allegations" that are listed in this article "geopolitical and cultural disagreement" that could be opposed to "reflexive and irrational prejudice"  ? Gedefr 02:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
But to keep in line with your rather sophistic argument, I would add that a "phobia" is kind of sentiment (that is hate) -whereas "disagreement" is a rational standpoint and not a "sentiment". Futhermore, consider the fact that you are redirect to "francophobia" by this sentence "For general Anti-French hostility see Francophobia" where "general" means non specifically related to the US, and "anti French hostility" is a synonym for "anti French sentiment". Gedefr 02:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Please read what I actually wrote. My argument is that "surrender monkey" and such should be moved to the "francophobia" article. Some of the other material in the article -- discussion of the effects of DeGaulle's policies and other historical issues, geopolitical tensions, and the like -- does not represent "francophobia" as a reflexive prejudice. I think it is useful to distinguish the two, unless one believes that any and all controversy over French actions equates to francophobia. Raymond Arritt 02:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
But I really do not think that this article was ever intended to be a history of the US disagreements (or other non prejudice based reactions) towards French politics. It is certainly not at this time. And, as I pointed out, a "disagreement" is not, and will never be, a "sentiment". You're suggesting to write an altogether different article. Gedefr 03:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Raymond Arritt, you're playing on words. Francophobia is "anti-French sentiment", or "hating the French" - this is the meaning of the word, plain and simple. It's not about whether this hatred is deep-rooted or a reaction to current affairs ; it's neither about whether this "sentiment" is legitimate or if it's only prejudice. The word is just a description of an attitude, period. Besides, "anti-French sentiment in the United States" is a subsection of the Francophobia article - this article being only a development of that subsection.
If you disagree with de Gaulle's policies, or with French diplomacy, it's not an "anti-French sentiment". It's a rational point of view. Now if you say "the French are cowards and backstabbers ! Look at de Gaulle, look at Iraq !", that's "anti-French sentiment". That's a very different thing. And that's the subject of this article. - Fils du Soleil 03:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


I agree with both Gedefr and Fils du Soleil more than both of you seem to think. My view is that the present article is incoherent -- it combines some interesting historical discussion on tensions between the U.S. and France with commentary on irrational prejudice. If for the sake of argument we equate "anti-French sentiment" with "Francophobia" then the historical and other factual material does not belong here. I guess I am arguing for an altogether different article, as mixing the two topics is not useful. Among other things it can be seen as attempting to provide factual justification for prejudice.
One way to separate the two would be to retitle the present article "Francophobia in the U.S." so its topic is unambiguous. Then the historical and political material would go to another article called something like "Political tensions between France and the U.S." (that's not a good title; it would take a bit of thought to come up with something appropriate). In other words I concur with Fils du Soleil when he says, "If you disagree with de Gaulle's policies, or with French diplomacy, it's not an 'anti-French sentiment'" -- the implication being that such material belongs in a different article from one on francophobia. Maybe I will be bold and do it... Raymond Arritt 03:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I understood that we were not completely at odds. That's what i tried to say when i said that you were suggesting to write a completely different article -with a completely different title, should I have added. That's indeed a bold move. The limit of it being that you cannot dissociate fully the francophobia in the us from the "political tensions between France and the US" as this francophobia has waxed and waned mostly in correlation with these tensions. But I cannot agree more with you when you write that the present "mix" "can be seen as attempting to provide factual justification for prejudice". Gedefr 03:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
As a starting point we should re-title the present article so its topic is unambiguous. If it is indeed meant to be about francophobia in the United States (as implied by the general Francophobia article), why not simply title the article "Francophobia in the United States"? The word "sentiment" implies there may be distinction; take for example "market sentiment" in the context of financial markets, where the term implies the prevailing estimation of price direction based on current facts and trends.
As for the present mix, it suffices merely to note that francophobia has tended to move in tandem with political tensions, without going into a lot of marginally relevant discussion of the Louisiana Purchase and so forth. Certainly much of the "Before the Second World War" section has nothing to do with francophobia as an emotional prejudice, and its presence here implies that disagreement based on political considerations can represent "anti-French sentiment". Raymond Arritt 04:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


I agree with you, Raymond, except that there is already such an article : Franco-American relations. Maybe you want to improve it, or start an offshoot focusing on the tensions altogether - it's your call, although I think the existing article isn't that bad. Regarding the current article, I find it inevitable that there be a mixing between "objective elements" and "emotional response" - and the article should list both. After all, it's usually divergences on specific topics that start "anti-something" sentiments. Then, once the stereotype is rooted in the collective mind, it will find new justifications for itself in current affairs (and self-reinforce in the process). So the article should trace how and when this "anti-french sentiment" appeared in the United States, and what subsequent events made it stronger. That inevitably links to "real world disagreements" that bring about a strong emotional response. If we take for instance the most recent wave of "french bashing" in America, during the pre-Iraq war period, it's a fact that two strongly opposed world visions were clashing. Then previous bad experiences (real or felt) between the two countries resurfaced (mostly de Gaulle's "independent" diplomacy) and compounded the problem. Add some patriotic/nationalistic crispations, plus some"under the waist" attacks ("the French are cowards, look at WWII !"), and voilà, you have a full blown "anti-French" sentiment.

So anyway, Raymond, I think your input is valuable and that "rational" and "prejudiced" remarks should be distinguished as far as possible, but bearing in mind that they are intertwined and that an "anti-something" phenomenon is necessarily a back-and-forth movement between the two. Hope this helps. - Fils du Soleil 04:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


  • And Gedefr, cher ami, I think we should be careful here. We tread a fine line. Sure, we don't want to "provide factual justification for prejudice", but we shouldn't be blind to the fact that there is a connection between "factual events" and prejudice. So we still want to show the events that sparked a "strong emotional response", however unfair and unbalanced, which helped create and then regularly reinforces the "anti-French sentiment". - Fils du Soleil 04:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding the section "Before the Second World War", I think it is relevant to the subject, in the sense that it sheds light on how the United States went from a francophile sentiment right after the Independance War and the help received from the French, to a gradually more ambiguous sentiment after that marked by the rise of an "anti-French" component. - Fils du Soleil 02:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Raymond,

I've just reverted some of your edits on "understanding". 1) you asked for references. But there's two very comprehensive references (one in French, that you can read on line, and one in English. The Justin Vaisse's article will give more references if you need any about what is written on "understanding". 2) You've put again a distinction that we've discussed (see above) and ruled out between governement/people. Please do take into account what is discussed on this page. Gedefr 20:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The cited references will be accessible to very few readers: one is in a foreign language, and the other is in an academic journal. The whole thesis that American francophobia can be attributed to the low numbers of Americans with French ancestry is highly speculative. If you're going to make this argument, you owe it to the reader to support it with useful and accessible English-language sources. If you cannot find such sources, that in itself speaks to the reliability of your thesis. Secondly, the article defines its subject as "a reaction towards the perceived adversarial and anti-American government, culture, and people of France." That does not inherently equate to francophobia -- if someone perceives another as an adversary, and reacts accordingly, by definition it is based on specific actions and is not a prejudice or "phobia". If this article is indeed about francophobia, then the present heading must be deleted, as it is inaccurate, and replaced by "Anti-French sentiment in the United States is the American expression of Francophobia." Regrettably, there is no uniformity in this regard across the range of "anti-(nation)" articles in Wikipedia. I would say that the Anti-Americanism article does the best job of straddling the broad gray area between principled criticism and prejudice -- please have a look at its opening paragraphs. Raymond Arritt 22:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The missing French diaspora[edit]

I've edited this to clarify that it's the thesis of a particular researcher -- before, it was simply posed as a self-evident truth. Also, after reading Vaïsse's article, I've made a few minor changes to reflect more closely what Vaïsse says. Raymond Arritt 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There might not have been a diaspora from France, but there are actually quite a lot of Americans of French descent. Especially in New England and the Midwest. Still the French more thoroughly assimilated than several other groups so I don't know how much of a French identity there is. According to the census[1] only about 526,000 French-Americans speak a language other than English. I don't see how that's much different than the Dutch or Germans though.--T. Anthony 08:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

its partisan nature[edit]

It seems to me that the article does not place enough of an emphasis on the partisan nature of anti-French sentiment in the post 9/11 world. While some American liberals may have made the occasional "cheese-eating" joke prior to the Iraq war, none would dare to do so now, out of fear of being labeled as right wing supporters. This became especially true following the "freedom fries" incident, which liberal Americans found terribly embarrassing. Regardless of the "old" origins of anti-French sentiment, today it is completely bound to left vs. right politics. 70.20.136.170 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Socialism" section[edit]

From the Socialism subheading of this article:

"In addition, the French comprehensive welfare state system of public education, social services, publicly-funded health care and social security is often criticized as being "socialist" in the United States. Although it has been noted that with the exception of Americans who are in the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party, most Americans who critique French socialism for its social programs make no effort to dismantle American socialist programs or rush to defend American socialism, essentially creating a double standard."

The latter sentence is blatantly non-NPOV, and, besides that, has absolutely no relevance to the topic of this article. I've removed it. ObeliskBJMtalk 21:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed. It was a political/ideological statement concerning American politics. - Fils du Soleil 22:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone is really intent on promoting libertarianism:

"American libertarians have often pointed out the ridiculousness of Americans criticizing French socialism and their socialist programs, yet defending American socialist programs as "free enterprise". The libertarians have often pointed out it is much more effective for Americans to deal with dismantling their own welfare state rather than be quick to criticize a foreign country's programs."

I've removed this, which seems to have been added to the Socialism section following my removal of the previous non-NPOV statement, for the reasons given above. ObeliskBJMtalk 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Pro-French sentiment in the United States[edit]

Wikipedia continues it's fine postion of being anti-American... why is there no "pro-French sentiment in the US" section? The US is not an inherently anti-French country, we've gone through cycles.--Rotten 17:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why don't you just create the page ? Arronax50 (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Who said Wikipedia was neutral ? It's only made by internet users, thery follow their time and today anti-French sentiment (as the anti-American sentiment in France) is more known and diffused in the US than the opposite. I mean, if Wikipedia and Internet existed between the independence of USA and the French revolution, I'm utterly sure that lots of Amreican people would agree with creating a "pro-French sentiment in the USA". As you said, it follows cycles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.27.159.86 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

France/Israel relations[edit]

France was an ally of Israel before the Six Day war. More precisely, France was an extremely close ally of Israel until 1962/1963 (arguably closer than the us today), than the relation became more distant, but not, in any sense, hostile. Before the war, an embargo on weapons that Israel had bought to France was used by France in an attempt to prompt Israel not to go to war. That did not mean that France did not support Israel any more -just that it tried to avoid the coming confrontation. At the time, the US had an embargo policy of its own, and for the same reasons, that really ended only after the Six Days War -and I guess no one would say that the US was not an ally of Israel (details here : [2]). The French policy toward Israel changed dramatically only during and after the war, france embracing its so called arab policy. Gedefr 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You concede that France placed an embargo on weapons that Israel had bought from France BEFORE the war. You personal opinion that this was "an attempt to prompt Israel not to go to war" is nice, but unsourced. This relatively minor point aside, you keep removing material sourced verbatim to a reference you provided, which clearly states that France was using the war as an excuse to cozy up to Arab countries, and replacing this well sourced material with your original research . Please stop it. Isarig 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That is not my personal opinion, but the commonly held view on this matter. To only quote the reference that I provided, and that you twist into a childish caricature of anti french opinions : "In 1967, during and after the Six Day War, France reversed its policy toward Israel radically. Before, France had been a supporter of the Jewish state ; after the war it increasingly opposed Israel on crucial matters." Gedefr 10:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
if it is the commonly held view that France placed the embargo as "an attempt to prompt Israel not to go to war" it should be easy to source it. And again,this is a relatively minor point- you are delting other relevant info, sourced to a reliable reference. Please stop it. Isarig 12:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The "other relevant information" from a "reliable source" you are refering to are your POV imposed on this source. The way you cannot even accept that simple sentence from that source ("In 1967, during and after the Six Day War, France reversed its policy"), is a good testimony of the way you are dealing with it. Gedefr 12:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
POV imposed on the source? How so? This is word-for-word what the source says. Isarig 12:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Word for word, the source says :"In 1967, during and after the Six Day War, France reversed its policy toward Israel radically". during and after, not before. By the way, I know that France is BAD, really BAD, but can you try to write something neutral ?Gedefr 10:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I have provided two other sources that say France did this before the war. You are reeverting well sourced material - which is vandalism. If you persist, you will find yourself blocked. Isarig 18:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Post World War II[edit]

pff, such ridiculous sections are a pain in the ass really. kids should not be allowed to edit wikipedia. this whole stuff about indochina is just stupid. why don't you learn on a subject before editing such nonsense?! Paris By Night 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"One concern was that the current North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) arrangement had a large number of American troops stationed in France. Americans were unhappy about the actions of de Gaulle and believed he was ungrateful as many Americans had lost their lives liberating France." magnifique! it's even worst that i imagined in the first place, frankly i'd like to smack at the kid who wrote such a ridiculous line. Americans were unhappy about the actions of de Gaulle and believed he was ungrateful as many Americans had lost their lives liberating France is this the encyclopedic way to sum up decades of geopolitics and history? pfff, "the actions of de Gaulle", i'm sure the one who wrote this doesn't even know how de gaulle looks like and what he did in his life. i've better things than rewrite a such stupid article, but i'll do it for sure when i get time to kill. i'm speechless. "Lafayette nous voilà!" they said Paris By Night 23:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
If you can correct the material in a neutral manner that is well-supported by reliable sources, please do so. An ongoing problem with this article has been lack of references for assertions, as well as editing to promote a given point of view (by both pro- and anti-French editors). Raymond Arritt 03:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is well detail, yet strangely glosses over World War II. The foundation for most Anti-French sentiment I encounter in the US is that the French people are unappreciative to the Americans for liberating them from Nazi Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.92.205 (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of France/Israel section[edit]

This section seems to be mostly about France's relationship with Israel. It says nothing at all about the Unitied States - so I wonder what the relevance is. Unless someone can provide a source that explictly says that the France/Israel relationship is causing Anti-French sentiment in the United States, this section probably needs to go entirely. Isarig 06:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

1966, and France Israel relations[edit]

"France waged war alongside Israel in 1956 in the Suez Crisis but changed its position towards Israel before the Six-Day War[17]. On the eve of the war, the French concluded that they had more to gain from Arab oil producers and abruptly switched sides, imposing a total arms embargo on Israel. [18]. Israeli diplomat and scholar Freddy Eytan argues that after 1962, since France was no longer a colonial power, it was convenient for it to claim that Israel was a colonial state since it had conquered territories. This masked France's true political motives. It had understood the importance of the Arab oil reserves and sought ways to improve its relations with the Arab states. The political calculation was not difficult: there are twenty-one Arab states and only one Jewish one. [19]."

That is partialy correct. But one of the main point reproached to Israel by De Gaulle was first to haved started the war in 1966, and then to keep arab territories under control after victory, such as the Golan. And as far as I know, France has continued to sell maintenance material for french-made weapons used by Tsahal, and especialy for the then-crucial Mirage fighters. That should be noted to have a fair view of this decision.

France has never been really against Israël, it has just juged from time to time that some decision of Israël are not the best for the stabily of the region, of for peace.

Please add category[edit]

Whenever this page becomes unprotected, would someone please add Category:Francophobia to this article? Thanks. --Wassermann 21:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to wait for unprotection, some admin shouild do it right away. -- Petri Krohn 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


Just about...[edit]

Jerry Lewis who obtained the Legion d'Honneur, this medal is not just the "France's highest civilian award" but also the France's highest military award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.82.238.186 (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Francophobia?[edit]

How is Anti-Americanism not a form of Americanophobia, but Anti-French is a a form of Francophobia? Maybe the introduction of either was those articles needs to be rewritten. IronCrow (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it seems highly suspect to equivocate Anti-French sentiment with Francophobia, and then go in in the first paragraph to portray the latter (and by extension the former) as irrational. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 05:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"se taire" does not equal "shut up"[edit]

In the section writen on the Iraq war it is said Chirac said Eastern European states "missed an opportunity to shut up". Sorry but that is foxnewesque (at most) stuff. He said "ils ont manqué une bonne occasion de se taire", while the first part is easy to translate the second one (se taire) does not translate at all in English for such concept does not seem to appear in English at all. To tell about someone he should have "shut up" is extremely rude, that translation is clearly abusive to anyone with a good command of the French language and does not correspond to the intensity of the declaration. I know some newspapers (like the Washington Post) used this translation but it definately is mediocre journalism. Actually, in order to translate as "shut up" the declaration should have been "manqué une bonne occasion de fermer leur gueule" (litteraly, "to shut it up"). The English translation that transcripts "se taire" the best is probably "to remain silent" or "to stay quiet" which dramaticaly changes the tone of the declaration. Matthieu (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)