Talk:Anti-French sentiment

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703103358/http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/american-francophobia/ to http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/american-francophobia/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Anti-French sentiment in the United States

There's a proposal to blow up the article Anti-French sentiment in the United States, and start over. Your feedback would be welcome at this discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent Contributions from MarioSuperstar77

In this threat to start an edit war, MarioSuperstar77 seems to feel that he can simply add a trivial instance of anti-French sentiment with one source and have it qualify for a article with an incredibly broad scope. I maintain that this is trivia and 100% WP:UNDUE. Since he's already threatening to start edit-warring over it, I thought I would attempt to head that off with a discussion here. Cheers. Benicio2020 (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because something is verifiable by some source, doesn't mean it automatically qualifies for inclusion in an article. If it did, articles would become bloated, unreadable collections of every occurrence of a term ever recorded or discoverable on the internet. The other aspect of this is WP:DUEWEIGHT, which says that we should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in published, reliable sources." Given the wide scope of this topic, it's questionable whether such ephemeral items of limited interest represents a "significant viewpoint" that should remain in this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the content we publish in the article should be the kind of thing that merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I said I was gonna undo your revision, I never stated I would start an edit-war with you. You're projecting. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You're not undoing anything. You are going to discuss here, and understand that you are the only editor with your point of view, and you are going to see other editors tell you that you are wrong, and you are going to listen to them. Benicio2020 (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

1 v 3 is a sample too small to use the word 'only'. I would not have commented here in the first place if you did not exaggerate the one thing I said to you. I assumed you reverted my edit in bad faith since it was sourced and all, so that was why I made a comment as harsh as I did. @Benicio2020:and you are going to see other editors tell you that you are wrong, and you are going to listen to them, is this supposed to be a struggle session? For real, calm down, what's your problem? You're being so antagonizing for no good reason. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Benicio2020: cool it, just try to be diplomatic... you started this discussion with an attempt to discredit MarioSuperstar77... focus on the content. There's no need to demean him or be rude; he did NOT threaten to start an edit war... stop being uncivil. Put down your weapons bro.

Now onto the real discussion. The section in question is trivial. We've already talked about the "frogs" content (on Benicio's talk page), but about the singular tweet... that totally is WP:UNDUE. One tweet does not constitute France being unfrequently the target of either mockery or vicious criticism. I agree with Mathglot above--just because it's reported by a reputable source does not automatically qualify its inclusion into an encyclopedia article. EDIT: forgot signature --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Make "1.1.1 Britain" section more accessible to readers

The "1.1.1 Britain" section was a little hard to follow as it was. I made a few edits that are about using more accessible language and providing some extra historical context I believe is necessary for those with no knowledge of English history. Nxavar (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Battle of France

Six weeks doesn"t make a months . This statment are false and fuel the francophobia and hide the retreat of Dunkirk who played a massive role in the surrender of France . 2A01:CB00:456:9C00:4C86:BAB:5A72:BAD4 (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)