Talk:Anti-French sentiment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion that led to the creation of this article, moved from Talk:Anti-French sentiment in the United States

Don't evolve, mutate!

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 Anti-French sentiment in the United States, 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 saw 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)

I need HELP in the (global) Anti-French sentiment article. Anyone?

Get busy here: Anti-French sentiment. Thanks a lot :-)

Very good job Jules but this should be left as user page until its ready. When things start as just a collection of stub sections they can turn into a very messy article. Did you not think the structure I had on my user page appropriate? Marskell 17:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I am moving everything on this page to the user page I had already created (and did mention to you Jules): User:Marskell/Anti-French sentiment. It simply was not ready so lets work on it from there and agree in a few days when it is a go. OK? Marskell 17:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

OK for a couple of days, but once you have the structure roughly decided I don't really see the point in keeping it where fewer people will find it/be willing to edit it... It should be available for collective editing as soon as possible, as it WILL be a collection of stubs anyway (I don't know about you, but I'm not going to write something that looks like an entire article in a couple of days). so let's get to work :-)Jules LT 18:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. See for instance what I added to Francophobia in Britain and French Revolution; stubbish in length but specified. I think the article should look that way consistently and then get torn abort by wiki wolves >:[. I suppose my point is if you just leave a bunch of headers with two sentences you invite laundry lists rather than useful content. For instance, the first anon edition was the French smell bad... No way! :)--Marskell 18:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

In fact, it was simply someone changing "The French are dirty and rarely wash" for "The French lack basic personal hygiene. Women don't shave their armpits, nor their legs" and moving this to the end of the list of stereotypes I had personally retrieved and translated from the French wikipedia article on the Anti-French sentiment in the United States, which is entirely legitimate, in my humble opinion. Maybe I'm not experienced enough at wikipedia, but laundry lists look like useful material to me when all you have is a couple of phrases. Something to work from. Of course, if you're willing to get better starting material elsewhere, it's all the better, and I wouldn't be so cruel as to leave all that work to you.Jules LT 19:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"Smells bad" was a paraphrase--sorry, didn't want to go back and look. Point is, even if phrased better it invites bullshit. Given enough time someone would change it to "the French stink." Let me put this another way: in articles that deal with stereotyping, it's better not to privilege the stereotypes off the top but to deal with historical context. This is precisely why anti-american sentiment is now a better, more stable article. As for "leaving it me" as I've said a few times: edit the user page. I incoporated what you wrote so incorporate more. And please don't interpret my grabbing your content and moving it immediately as possessiveness. Marskell 19:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No offense meant, none taken, really, don't worry. I never implied possessiveness. Actually, I began working on your user page too, and only stopped because I saw the "Edit conflict" page once too many times, so I started another related page on the "112 Gripes about the French" WWII American Army handbook which I think will look quite good as a link from here and from the new page.Jules LT 20:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The new page is coming along very nicely; good choice on pics Jules. A few things:

• I'm tending toward Francophobia rather than Anti-French sentiment. I've explained why in Use of the Term; basically it is more relevant historically.
• I moved the General stereotypes to the bottom and am wondering if its really needed at all or at least can be reduced. Again, privileging a lot of simple-minded stereotypes and insinuations doesn't strike me as useful.
• The one section I really have no confidence in writing myself is France in Africa and Asia. Certainly, the French empire had to have bred a lot of hostility there but I don't much about it.

Otherwise, the page is almost a go. Good job! --Marskell 14:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who should say good job to you... I hardly did anything, you're obviously much more experienced at this than me. By the way, did you redact all of this yourself from knowledge and Wikipedia or is there some kind of trick?

As for Francophobia, I'm still hesitant but on the whole it looks good, and if someone comes up with arguments against it later there can always be a vote on the page.

You were absolutely right to put the general stereotypes at the end of the article, it will certainly attract less vandalism that way. They can also be reduced but I really wouldn't know what is less common than the rest. In fact, I put that in because I saw it in the French Wikipedia "anti-French sentiment in the US" article and thought it fitted better in a general "Francophobia/anti-French sentiment" article, especially with the historical explanation. The study was only to show the importance of the phenomena.

I think the historic thing would be great to buff up the intro, with something like "The contemporary prejudices against the French are often derived from criticisms from the immediate post-war period and the way of life of the artistic and philosophic elite of the time. Although those prejudices are widespread today, Francobia has existed for a long time and adopted very different forms. Prominent among those are the accusations of being a continental hegemon, then an imperial power, and a vocal middle power". The main titles should be rephrased but I think I'll put that in, because the one line intro is clearly not enough.

I'll put in the little I know about the African situation (subway bombings by algerians, suspected support to many African dictatorial regimes, intervention in Cote d'ivoire...); as for Asia, that will take more research than I've got time for.Jules LT 19:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

No trick, just my enormous brain ;). My futile attempt at an education did include 45 pages on British linguistic nationalism in the 18th century so most of my additions aren't googlisms. It's important to stress on this page that contemporary Anti-French sentiment in the U.S. is not the be all and end all of the phenomenon or even the most pronounced example. Francophobia for the longest time was British, British, British. It's partly for this reason I don't like the article we're talking on now. It foregrounds one piece of Anti-French sentiment and I think is a good example of "recentism" (that should be a Meta-Wiki word if its not): what's happening now appears of greater import than it is. How many soapbox articles have been created because of the Iraq war for instance (I partly include this one)? A hundred years from now it'll rank somewhere above the occupation of the Phillipines and somewhere below the Mexican War in terms of importance in American history, yet if you read wiki at the moment you'd think it was the biggest geo-political event since WWII.

Anyhow, I'll try and track down stuff for Asia somewhere. We can always put expand notices on certain sections. Marskell 10:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The vietnamese didn't like the french, nor did any of their colonies elsewhere, to my knowledge. Sam Spade 01:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's true of just about every colonial country there ever was. If you have some more detail, feel free to insert it in User:Marskell/Anti-French sentiment. There's a talk page there, too. It's about to be moved (with history and talk) to Francophobia instead of that silly redirect, but you really don't have wait for that to add in anything you like: this is still wiki :) Jules LT 18:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

French support to dictatures

Maybe I should begin a new article on that: there's an astounding amount of information on this on the net, but not on Wiki, even on the French one. It seems that there aren't that many Africans on Wikipedia.Jules LT 20:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking that. It risks breaking the flow of the article given how much there is. Hm. It could go under French colonial empires if that's not too overlong. This page could give a briefer synopsis and redirect. --Marskell 21:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a hint: The Anti-Americanism article does NOT include an exhaustive list of dictatures that have been -or are being- supported by the US. Similarly, an article on Francophobia does not need to include every real or alleged fact that is denounced by francophobes. Otherwise, the title should read something like "1001 reasons to hate the French". Tocquevil 09:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's unclear whether the alleged French support of dictatures does actually fuel Anti-French sentiments, and if yes, it's unclear in which populations it does. We need references there. In the Françafrique article, we find references of criticisms that are levelled by french groups or individuals. I can find references of -mostly british/US- newspapers that level this charge against France, but in this case I'd say that Francophobia was already existing, and that this -somewhat hypocritical- criticism is rather a self-reinforcement of existing Francophobia. It would help to find references of actual Francophobia in those african countries, but it may be hard to distinguish it from colonialism resentment. Tocquevil 17:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Move to "Francophobia"

This has waited for too long. Wikipedia is meant for collaborative work, and people aren't going to come edit on a User page as freely as on a normal article. I'll help finish the work if and when I have time. Thanks for the good work, Marskell.Jules LT 14:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Random thoughts about Anti-French sentiment page, moved from User talk:Jules.lt

Which makes me think: what about a French image article about the way French things are associated with the luxury and finesse they hardly ever have in pretty much the same way that American things are associated with the whole American Dream concept (or American nightmare, as some would put it). This would work for many countries' reputation. Maybe one article for all of those instead of each? I don't know if any such thing exists... I'll have a look later and keep this here as a reminder.Jules LT 16:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

As you suggested, I have simply cleared the content of Anti-French sentiment in the United States from the User page I created, User:Marskell/Anti-French sentiment. It's now broadly chronological and I think would work--I would like a second opinion though. Regarding above considerations, French culture does exist (as does similar articles for other countries). This is probably the appropriate spot for "image" and "dreams" and the general "idea" of a country. Marskell 22:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree, no need to add anything more. As for Anti-French sentiment, I actually started the article, but I'm far from happy with it so go on and apply your ideas there: doing things on a User page is only useful to avoid disturbing a page that many people already work on. We don't have this problem here.Jules LT 16:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The article as it stands is going to create a lot random and tangential editions. I disagree about the User page: it is very helpful to create a structure before releasing and I thus moved all the material to the user page and reverted Anti-French to the redirect. The chronological order I had suggested will work I think and I can simply cut and paste some of your paragraphs to already suggested headings. Please don't take it the wrong way at all; can we say three days of editing before moving? Marskell 17:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey there. Sorry I let this one go a week. Please if you'd like the honour, simply cut and paste the article from the user page to Francophobia which is now a re-direct. I've added expand notices to three sections. The only thing I wouldn't send over is the General Stereotypes. We can discuss once moved whether support for dictators ought to be a side article. Marskell 16:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the support to dictators should indeed be a side article, but at the moment I don't have the time or energy to do it. Maybe later. I placed Francophobia on the requested moves page so the history will be kept, I think that's the way it should be. The general stereotypes might need to be streamlined, or broken into information to be used elsewhere, but not deleted.Jules LT 18:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I like the revised intro. And I really insist that we keep this page's history and talk as we move it, so let's wait for an admin.Jules LT 18:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It should be its own page and probably given a more general descriptor like French involvement in Post-Colonial Africa.

I asked an admin to speedy the move. I am glad we held it back to get it in shape--it's a good page. Marskell 18:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not an admin, so you'll have to ask somebody else, I did make a comment of support at Requested moves however. Sam Spade 20:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Why was this living in User space, anyway? Dragons flight 04:55, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'll move the discussion that led to the creation of the article (and accompanied its elaboration) here, so you'll see. Jules LT 20:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'd say if you're picking a date to start this at, 1066 would be better than 1648 :D --zippedmartin 19:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

1066 means a lot for Brits but not so much for the French. We don't start talking about the Japenese Empire the moment the U.S. declared war on them, right? I do agree with the general insinuation that it could be pushed back but thought not because "Anti-French..." whatever becomes so hard to define before you can identify a real nation-state. Were the rebellions of Burgundy Francophobia or just a (not-yet-defined) French-on-French war? --Marskell 22:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually 1066 makes some sense for France as well. When William conquered England he 'took' with him his claim to the throne of France, he kept extensive lands in France and English ( ruling class at least ) and French culture merdged. William'S claim to the throne of France led directly to the Hundred years war.145.253.108.22 15:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Links and Quebec

First, I've updated links and added some redirects. If anyone wants to sprinkle around some more links please do.

Also, it occured to me no mention is made of the fact that this idea could well be applied to les Quebecois. I think it might even be included in the intro. Or maybe a short sentence at the bottom? Marskell 14:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, that's just what I was thinking (as a bilingual Canadian). Maybe I will try to write a little one later, it certainly deserves as much space as the "Anti-French sentiment in the USA" because in this case there are *actual* French people involved in the equation. ;) Dan Carkner 14:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Pardon my French

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)

article biased IMO

I stumbled upon this article this morning, but upon rereading it in more detail I find it to be poorly laid out--many sections seem to be simply lists of stereotypical things the French have done wrong in the eyes of England/USA! Or am I wrong? Sure, there's some validity to them, but they should not BE the article. I shouldn't imagine other articles about prejudices are laid out in this manner. Luckily I am generous and have no idea how to slap on a NPOV tag or whatever it's called, but can anyone defend the article as it is now? Dan Carkner 04:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I put a NPOV-Check tag on this article. Here are my reasons: -It focuses far too little on talking about prejudice against the French and instead consists mostly of a long list of reasons people would dislike the French, most people who edit this article simply add something to the list;

-It makes no mention whatsoever of prejudice against Francophones in Bilingual countries, such as Canada, Belgium, etc. which should be an important component;

-The French equivalent is an extremely minimal stub, leading me to believe that this is less of a problem for French than one for Americans;

-In general it seems very unprofessional, especially the last section and the collection of links, which are mostly French-mocking websites.

As I said before, I agree that the French as a Western power and a European country have done many downright wrong things throughout history, but "Francophobia" does not call for a listing of these things. If you want to make an article about "French blunders and Character flaws throughout history" go right ahead. Or mention them briefly in this article. But really... this comes off as being from the perspective of American would-be-pundits, Anglophone students of history, etc. Dan Carkner 01:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I change POV to lacks global perspective as that's what your comments underscore. Might I suggest editing while commenting? Drop the websites that aren't notable for example. The anti-state articles get spammed by them needlessly. This article was started with stubbish sections and needs balance, so go for it. That it's a stub on the French wiki has little bearing, I'd suggest, on how it appears here. Marskell 12:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough with the Global Perspective tag, but I don't think I will get anywhere by editing it myself. It would involve cutting out large sections of it, surely not something that would please the people who have been piling their perspective into this. Dan Carkner 13:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry if this sounds snippy but hit-and-run criticism doesn't achieve much if you don't want to edit. Obviously gutting the page wouldn't be a good idea but you can be bold, for instance, in turning the lists into prose and emphasizing the "what" more than "why". Marskell 22:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Dan Carkner has really a point here. This article is clearly biased if you compare to the Anti-americanism article. It tends to be a list of historical "facts" or prejudices that seem to legitimate the anti-french sentiment. There is no -or little- criticism of francophobia as a prejudiced point-of-view. Tocquevil 20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So in that case it's no different than the Anti-Americanism article? Perhaps one of the reasons it is a stub on the French wiki is because (not surprisingly) there isn't much support for it in France? You could also note the breadth and depth of the "facts" in the Anti-Americanism article in French wiki and you could call it something real nice and NPOV like nationalism and maybe even take it seriously. Yeah, right. That's because nationalism, like xenophobia and jingoism, is an emotion not a political argument based on factual evidence. Attitudes that were not formed by facts cannot be changed by facts. But I see you decided to do the responsible thing and go ahead and just blame it on the Americans.Rodiggidy (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Rodiggidy

In the Gaullism paragraph, I removed a part of the sentence about the exaggeration of the role the French played in their own liberation. There is nothing to support the claim that some frenchmen pretend that France liberated itself. The BBC article in reference does not support it. If anything, it can only support the claim that the french involvement in the liberation of Paris is perceived by the British as a french exaggeration.Tocquevil 09:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing on Haiti?

A lot could be said about Haiti... AnonMoos 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, this article is not about what France is. If it is a good country or a bad country is not the subject. The subject is to list the most common critics against France, it's no matter if they are indeed facts or not. And what happended in haïti may have been wrong and may have been because of France, but it is not a common anti-french critic. So I think it doesn't have to be on this article For the same reasons, I removed the passage:"(See how far you can get in North-America with French for example)", because it is assessing that the critic before is true (and then it is non-neutral), and it comes from personal experience instead of being what can be considered a common critic.

Actually, Moos is right insofar as the Haitan revolution was accompanied by real tremendous Anti-colonial outrage directed, most obviously, at France. Marskell 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

France and the EU

I'm removing this section. Although I agree with some of the sentiments expressed, it's just someone's attempt to complain about France's position in the EU and its relations with other EU countries. Absolutely no attempt has been made to relate it to Francophobia. Parts of it also don't make sense (found what exaggerated?), it contains colloquiallism ("teamplayer" etc) and the presentation as fact the idea that France leads the EU is hardly neutral POV. The section ought to exist but I really can't see a single line of the current section that can be kept. 131.111.8.97 22:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bias

(moved from above) Marskell 12:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dan Carkner has really a point here. This article is clearly biased if you compare to the Anti-americanism article. It tends to be a list of historical "facts" or prejudices that seem to legitimate the anti-french sentiment. There is no -or little- criticism of francophobia as a prejudiced point-of-view. Tocquevil 20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Gaullism paragraph, I removed a part of the sentence about the exaggeration of the role the French played in their own liberation. There is nothing to support the claim that some frenchmen pretend that France liberated itself. The BBC article in reference does not support it. If anything, it can only support the claim that the french involvement in the liberation of Paris is perceived by the British as a french exaggeration.Tocquevil 09:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit away where you see imbalance, please. This is list-ish and incomplete; one of those back-back-burners. And I agree with the larger point. Anti-Americanism is turning (rightly I think, though opposed by others) away from a laundry list of American faults toward the theory and criticism surrounding the topic. Ideally, the same will happen here. I think removing the stereotype list was a good step in this regard. Marskell 12:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The pure hypocrisy of this

Patriotic Generic Flag-Waving American #5432 inserted: "The support of France to African dictatorships" I mean, do Americans get irony in any way? It's hilarious that they can accuse others of 'sheltering dictators' and 'propping up dictatorships'. Oh wait, sorry, I forgot, America went into all those Latin American/Indochinese/Arab/Asian/African countries to save the people... Sorry about that, I forgot. 9/11 SAW DEIFITSUJ.

You're a funny one :P I wrote this, I'm French, and I'm ashamed of my country's stance towards african dictators. That America could be worse has nothing to do with it. Jules.LT 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of this article. It's not about writing up everything you're ashamed of about your country; it's about describing and explaining Francophobia, and giving sources backing up your statement that a given fact or perception - e.g support to dictators - has actually created or increased Francophobia. Tocquevil 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying shame is the reason why support for dictators should be mentionned. That this makes millions hate France is the reason. I'm sure it won't be too hard finding the websites of some Africans revolted by this if you want to. I only reacted because I found the irony of the guy's reaction funny: delete the paragraph altogether if you like, I don't care. Jules.LT 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So we should ignore it when it's used against you but not when Americans do it? Hmm, that's funny. I can recall similar criticisms on Americans all the time. Well, it's not hard finding the irony here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodiggidy (talk • contribs) 00:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

4 France as vocal Middle Power

I was planning to write a bit about "Anti-french sentiment in Canada" as I have wanted to for a while, but I noticed that these sections are developing under the category "4 France as vocal Middle Power" .. for example "Anti-french sentiment in Belgium" has nothing to do with this. Perhaps we can rearrange it somehow.. Dan Carkner 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess you want to write about Canadians who dislike the French, and not about English-Speaking Canadians who dislike the French-Speaking Canadians? I ask, because the contributor who wrote the "Anti-French sentiment in Belgium" actually wrote about Flamish people disliking Wallons. I changed the paragraph title to "Anti-francophone". In my opinion, we were wrong to allow the definition of Francophobia to encompass the dislike of Francophonie (i.e French speaking non-French populations.) If you look to the other country-phobia articles in Wikipedia, you'll find that they have a more restrictive definition. For instance, Anglophobia doesn't encompass the dislike of the Commonwealth, or other English speaking countries. Tocquevil 21:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm, for this article, I would actually recommend taking out the "Belgium" part and restrict it to anti-France, nothing about anti-Francophone in other countries, would you agree? Dan Carkner 03:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. Tocquevil 07:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Although they are e(or may be realted) so there should be links at the very least. Kevlar67 23:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole section is flawed. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, France is a major power, not a middle power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest moving article

Other articles on disdain toward a country follow the format "Anti-countryism" or "Anti-country sentiment" (e.g. Anti-German sentiment Anti-Japanese sentiment Anti-Arabism Anti-Australian sentiment Anti-Chinese sentiment Anti-Europeanism Anti-Canadianism ) Why does the French article not follow this? "Francophobia" seems to relate Anti-French sentiment as irrational fear, which seems both inaccurate and POV. I suggest we move this to "Anti-French sentiment," but since this seems to be a pretty hotly contested article I think it is worth discussion first. Thoughts?--Bibliophylax 18:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that "Francophobia" is an absurd title for the article. Flaws with the article aside, the title itself is (very much like "Homophobia", ugh, "fear of that which is alike". What's that supposed to mean anyways?) a linguistic abomination, Wikipedia should not promote these sorts of poorly constructed words. 207.177.231.9 19:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think this article is very disinterested in Francophobia and more interested in making a laundry list of criticisms of France. I mean, compare it to the Homophobia article (I know it's not the same), that article focuses mainly on the suffering caused by it, on the particular reasons why people would be so strange as to suffer it,etc. No laundry list of -- "reasons why people would hate gays. 1. gays are often rich 2. they are often white and racist 3. it is a western construct etc etc" or whatever reasons you could come up with.. Dan Carkner 19:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-French Sentiment in Canada

Many Canadians detest France for supporting Quebec sovereignty, especially relating to Charles de Gaulle's Vive Le Quebec Libre speech. Some may even have a negative view of France simply because they share a common heritage and language with French Canadians.

Could be mentioned. Should have link to the Vive le Québec libre speech. Could also contain link to Quebec Bashing. Kevlar67 23:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Although, aside from that one speech during the 1960s, France has seemed generally oblivious to Quebec or Quebec nationalism. any sources for this "reason" for hating the french? Dan Carkner 03:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Most English-Canadians dont hate the Frence them selves they just hate French-Canadians and the culture tht they brought to Canada, I live in Pacific Canada and I personly hate the French-Canadians, also many English-Canadians are not willing to have to learn Frence history, and the Frence Language in the Canadian School System and most personlly feal that it would be better for Canada if Quebec was to declare thair indendance from the rest of Canada. User:Matthew Husdon 03:48, 28 September 2006

I think francophobia in Canada deserves a great deal of attention in this article. I also fear that those who are most eager to contribute to the subject are also those who are the least informed about the subject. There is a great deal of ignorance in this country, both from English and French Canadians about eachother. As someone who lives on the Ontario/Québec border, and speaks both languages fluently, I am often shocked and dismayed at how both the French and English media distort and re-enforce mis-conceptions and stereotypes. The subject is shrouded in so much emotion and ignorance that I have found reasoned debate to be virtually impossible. The very thought of duking it out on wikipedia until it's neutral is giving me a headache already, so I don't think I will participate. Good luck! :) --70.81.251.32 00:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I just found the Anti-Quebec sentiment article, so I guess it's already done. However, I would point out that anti-French sentiment in Canada and anti-Québec sentiment are technically two different things. e.g. I live in a city in Ontario that is 70% French. My mother is French and from Ontario, while my father is English and from Québec. Most Canadians don't seem to understand that the border between Ontario and Québec does not really follow the boundries between French and English Canada. In fact, there is no distinct linguistic border at all. --70.81.251.32 00:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The WWII part

"Curiously however, similar criticisms are rarely levelled against the Poles, the Dutch or the Belgians, nor for that matter against the British forces who were on the Western Front with the French in 1939-40 and whose rout and flight to Dunkirk was part of the defeat." Because Netherlands, Belgium, and Poland are much smaller physically and militarily then France and Britain held out for a year alone against Germany against great odds. This article seems to be written by a french apologist and needs alot of cleanup.

What is better, an article wrote by a so called french apologist or one by a so called french hater ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.206.111.136 (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Seacrest Quote

Does the opinion of a minor media figure really matter in this regard? I understand the need to detail American anti-french sentiment, but I don't feel his words to be of any merit on the larger scale. I'd like to hear the opinions of others before taking any action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KieranKelly (talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

• Agree - I think I will zap him, especially as he can't spell. Who is he anyway? Johnbod 20:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Algeria

Is there any anti-French sentiment left in Algeria? I'm presuming there must be some, and it should probably be noted. Algabal 14:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up

Would anyone object if I deleted the list of gripes and replaced it with a structure? 193.132.242.1 16:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

French Fries vs Freedom Fries - who started it?

"move to rename french fries to freedom fries started by a private fast-food restaurant owner"

Anti-French_sentiment_in_the_United_States tells a different story. Which one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h (talk • contribs) 01:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Assessment

I have applied a quality rating of "Start" as far as the Canada WikiProject is concerned, mostly due to the multiple issues noted at the top of the article as of today. PKT (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard I and Philip II

The antagonism was so deep that it contributed to the rivalry between Richard I of England and Philip II of France over leadership of the Third Crusade.

I largely wrote the Angevin Empire article, which is quite consistent on the relationships between Richard I and Philip II and to associate their conflict with Francophobia, or as a conflict between English and French peoples as a whole, is utterly fallacious. Richard I who was nothing but downlooking on England certainly did not represent England as a culture nor as a point of view. Their conflicts were purely personnal especially after Richard I repudiated Alys (Philip II's sister). Matthieu (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding to that theres also something about Richard's mother being a former Queen of France (although the marriage was annulled because she never produced a child) and there was a conflict between the Duke of Normandy (the English King) and the French King since, before 1066, technically the Duchy was created in a conflict with the French. Also, that the conflict between the Saxons and Normans of England was so heated during Richard's reign is disputed by historians as far as I know, even Sir Walter Scott admits that Ivanhoe is historically inaccurate in this. This article completely ignores that Richard was FRENCH, not English, he spent most of his European time in his French holding, which were much larger and more valuable than all of England, English monarchs only really abandoned their French relations after they lost all of their French holdings. The Hundred Years War might actually be considered a French civil war, not as England trying to conquer foreign France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does misogallism come from? Google brings back this page and 2 pages quoting this page, so did someone not read the rules and make it up? I also doubt its necassary to state twice in neighboring sentences that phobos is greek for fear. Brought things back into more line with the reals and reality a little but my train of thought and wording might not be great, so feel free to fix, just keep in mind that most English Kings before the War of the Roses were infact French, saying they disliked the French is questionable, saying that they were treacherous vassals or had greedy eyes for the large nation which they came from and were neighboring is more rooted in reality, although I doubt that wording would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The relationships between the Kings of England and France between the battles of Hastings and Castillon are too complicated to be explored here and they are more dynastic conflicts between Frenchmen (at least for the Plantagenets) and that does not concern Francophobia at all. Since we're 2 to agree here I'm changed the sentence on Lionheart and Augustus EDIT: Oh, someone else already did it I see. Matthieu (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

British centrism

From the article:

"The time between the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and Napoleon's final capitulation in 1815 was, in essence, a prolonged Franco-British conflict to determine who would be the dominant European power (sometimed called the Second Hundred Years' War); virtually every large conflict of the period pitted a British-led alliance versus a French-led counterpart."

What constitutes a "large conflict" may be debated however conflicts during that period were not "in essence" Franco-British, such a notion ignores the scope of those conflicts, their casus belli and the relative weight of the factions involved.

• The Grand Alliance in the Nine Years War (1688-1697) aimed to keep French expansionism in check. The alliance formed by the Holy Roman Emperor was diverse and the war fought on multiple fronts. France was central to the conflict, Britain was not.
• The War of Spanish Succession (1701–1714) was fought, as the name implies, over dynastic claims, primarily between France (who wanted Philip V of Spain on the throne) and the Austrian Hapsburg (Leopold I).
• The War of the Quadruple Alliance (1718-1720) saw France and Britain on the same side.
• The War of Austrian Succession (1740-1748) was another dynastic conflict, this time over the Hapsburg throne, fought primarily between Prussia and Austria, joined by the usual suspects.
• The Seven Years War was another conflict between Prussia supported by Britain on one hand and Austria supported by France and Russia on the other hand.
• The American Revolutionary War was an independence war between the colonists in the 13 colonies and Britain. Probably the closest thing to a Franco-British conflict since the Hundred Years War due to the support provided by France to the colonists, and little involvement of the other european powers.
• The French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars were a series of conflict centred on French ambitions in Europe. The Peninsula War, the Battle of the Nile the Battle of Trafalgar and Waterloo were hardly the only events, Austria, Prussia, and Russia were not less central to the coalitions as Britain.

While it is correct that France and Britain ended up fighting on opposite sides in most of the conflicts during that period (see Balance of power in international relations#England for a reason), they were *not* battling for domination of Europe (something Britain didn't have the means to pursue following the loss of all its continental posessions anyway), neither were Britain or France "leading" their alliances in all those conflicts. Equendil Talks 20:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have altered the paragraph in the following ways : 1) replaced "european power" with "colonial power" as this describes the ambition of Britain (and France within that Franco-British context) much better, and 2) indicated that this how that period is perceived in Britain, which I think makes the paragraph neutral. Equendil Talk 20:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to French colonial pretensions?Twobells (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also simply removed the last sentence which is factually flawed. Equendil Talk 20:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Twelfth century poem?

Any relevance? Has it been mentioned?--T. Anthony (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination

and where is the discrimination? I've read the article and there is not a single case of discrimination so why is this article in the cathegory discrimination?

It's more accurately an article on prejudice, however since the two are pretty much floating in the same pool, it makes sense. 109.149.173.232 (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

merger of viewpoints

I would favor a merger of viewpoints in order to peacefully resolve the Edit Wars currently under way.

Thank you,

Another Point of View

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.7.23.172 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 15 March 2006

British

I think this article has a number of thinks which are inaccurate. British and English are not the same thing.

• The English lower classes have hated the French for a long time. Occupation by a brutal enemy tends to do that. It took longer for the occupiers to go native, but long before Shakespeare wrote about Henry V and all that, most of the English had no love for the French. There is a story that in 1848 the Charterists were going to march on Parliament, but a Frenchman took the podium to talk about Equality, Fraternity etc. So a butchers apprentice from Smithfield beat him up (because he was French), and everyone when home happy instead of marching on Parliament. There is no denying though that the English upper classes have frequently fallen in love with France and most things French. The really big bust up among the English upper classes and France did not happen until the French revolution.
  • See Norman Yoke, Peasants' Revolt, Diggers and the V sign
  • The feelings in England date to long before the Second World War and even when Entente Cordiale was at its hight most English people had their reservations. In "The English" by J. Paxman, he mentions the first world war, with particular reference to the French and Germans: Soldiers who fought on the Western Front in WW1 and experienced the full capacity of the French peasants, for whom they were supposed to be fighting, to rob them of their pay in exchange for an egg, came to understand the shallowness of the Entente Cordiale. Robert Graves wrote in "Goodbye to All That" on page 240 that during his time at Oxford University as an undergraduate that:

    "The eighteenth century owed its unpopularity largely to its Frenchness. Anti-French feeling among most ex-soldiers amounted almost to an obsession. Edmund, shaking with nerves, used to say at this time: 'No more wars for me at any price! Except against the French. If ever there is a war against them, I'll go like a shot.' Pro-German feeling had been increasing. With the war over and the German armies beaten, we could give the German soldier credit for being the most efficient fighting man in Europe... Some undergraduates even insisted that we had been fighting on the wrong side: our natural enemies were the French."

• However the Scots had the Auld Alliance which before 1746 worked as a sort of mutual defence pact. If England attacked one the other would cause problems for England.
• The Irish got on well with the French, as the French were often willing to support the Irish in their struggles against the English.

--PBS 22:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Stereotypes

Does anyone mind if I simply remove the stereotypes in general? It's an obvious POV magnet and it's full of stuff so generic I don't think it encylcopedic. An anon or someone did this a few weeks and I restored it but I think it may be the best idea. Marskell 12:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as there is evidence of each stereotype, then surely that's ok - after all - this article is about a POV topic....if a view exists in the real world, then it should be in here ! --jrleighton 12:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree -- An encyclopedia is not a forum for people to list their views, necessarily. Little serious attention has been paid to the subject of anti-francophone prejudice, for example in places like Canada and Belgium, or in former colonies, as it actually exists, because the Americans who write this article don't know/care about that kind of stuff. So we just get all these half-baked stereotypes. Dan Carkner 15:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Listing a referenced stereotype isn't listing a personal view. Non referenced stereotypes are a POV statement for removal. The non presence of other nations Francophobe stereotypes is a case of systemic bias as under the Wikiproject: Countering systemic bias - such bias presently occurs in many Wikipedia articles. The Francophobia article does need cleanup - but to argue for the removal of referenced stereotypes on account of supposed Americans listing personal views surely doesn't stand.--jrleighton 23:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The presence of the systematic bias template doesn't do anything to change the fact that this article will seemingly always be biased because it is edited by a majority of people with a particular agenda. Even if someone did come along and correct the bias, who would recognize/leave it? Dan Carkner 14:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Stereotypes II

This section (see text below) was unilaterally removed by User:Marskell on the basis that "this wasn't meant to be a placeholder for every possible criticism imaginable". As per the above stereotype discussion, there is a dispute on this issue. Unilateral deletions are, perhaps, a little authoritarian without reasoned debate, so I have saved the deleted text for all to see, and perhaps improve on what is written: either for permanent removal or reinsertion in its current or a revised form--jrleighton 11:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Stereotypes

Some of the most common negative stereotypes attributed to France or the French people include:

• French Economic Policies
  • France is a quasi-socialist country that cannot manage its economy.
  • Strikes regularly cripple the nation.
  • France is the main obstacle to CAP reform, which keeps many Third World farmers in penury.

• Civil Rights and Ethnic Relations
  • The French are often racist and anti-Semitism remains strong.
  • Statist policies trump civil rights. The French conception of laïcité is criticized.
  • Non-white immigrants are essentially ignored by the government and larger society.

• French Foreign Policy
  • Opposition to "Anglo-Saxon" values is reflexive and for-the-sake-of-it.
  • France acts hypocritically internationally, criticizing foreign interventions but intervening itself in Africa and elsewhere.
  • French companies – especially the state-owned arms manufacturers – often fuel corruption overseas (South Africa, Taiwan). The French government then shields the guilty parties by refusing extradition.

• Personal Characteristics
  • The French are extremely arrogant and overly proud of their history and culture.
  • The French have loose social mores and are generally unfaithful.
  • The French have minimal standards of personal hygiene.
  • The French are impolite and disrespectful towards tourists in general and non-French speakers in particular.
  • The French are emotive and showy.
  • The French enjoy eating foods objectionable to others (Frogs, snails, and ripe cheeses).
  • The French always seek to get their own self-interests furthered by underhand means if they cannot win by 'fair means' - The French rugby team play dirty and are considered the No. 1 eye gougers
  • The French cannot be trusted and are corrupt - cf XYZ Affair
  • The French cannot display gratitude - a charge made in comparison to efforts to liberate France from the Germans after WWII by many Americans regarding the war on Terror and by many in the UK over the French veto of UK entry to the then EEC
  • The French constantly display double standards and are extremely hypocritical. An extreme example is the French governments repeated cover up of the Paris massacre of 1961.
  • The French are cowards except when fighting their friends - Winston Churchill said of the destruction of the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir that it was only then that the French finally fought "with all their vigour for the first time since the war broke out".

On sent bien la jubilation nauséabonde de l'auteur de ces quelques lignes. Il n'est de toute façon que le reflet de la grossièreté habituelle des anglophones à l'égard des français. Vous l'aurez déviné je trouve ce personnage particulièrement antipathique. En ce qui concerne l'ignoble assassinat à mers el kebir de 2000 marins français coincés à bord de navires à quai et partiellement désarmés, je suis d'accord avec le gros churchill : ce fut certainement le moment le plus "glorieux" de l'armée britannique depuis le début de la guerre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.196.117.84 (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

... , en France , les grenouille sa se mange bien , pas beaucoup de français sont reconnaissant au américain pour la seconde guère (défois c'est même l'inverse) et je vois dans beaucoup de cas au moins une personne pour qui sa s'applique ici , plutôt que de venir troller sur les article en anglais a notre propos , serait t'il pas plus constructif d'essayer de comprendre pourquoi on a cette image la ...

Mais le Français est aussi obstiné , j'oubliais!

82.245.168.235 (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

bunch of lies! Yes USA helped France. But, don't forget , if USA is alive, it's because France has released it . Don't forget Louis XVI and La Fayette! Sorry, but lot of french have never eat frogs! --Laulou528 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with the removal of this section. A laundry list of claims would serve little purpose on Wikipedia, even on an article of this subject matter. Perhaps we should look at this like the conspiracy pages, and present statements with arguments from both sides. 68.202.142.213 (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up / don't mix "francophobia" with French neo-colonialism

I move this here. Not that I disagree with the contents, but one should not mistake "francophobia", of which the only way of respecting WP:VERIFIABILITY is by citing specific moments in time & in space where there actually has been waves of "francophobia" in this or that place (some examples: Great Britain during the wars against France, and also in the late 1890s when loads of French anarchists took exile there, until a 1895 political amnesty in France; of course, during the colonial wars, which hardly needs mentionning so obvious that it is; and, more recently, the so-called "liberty fries" episode in the US (despite France collaborating with the US in the CTIC counter-terrorist centers, but that's another story) and the recent surge in Côte d'Ivoire which has led to the departure of quite a few French expatriates.) The rest, such as this, really belongs to French neo-colonialism (but French colonial empire also needs some work). Tazmaniacs 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

France played a questionable role in many of its former African colonies. A pun developed to describe the  bn    
relationship—"Françafrique" (Françafrique), which can be read either as "France-Africa" or "Money France" ("France à fric").

Historically, France is accused of complicity in the installation of dictatorships, directly (supplies of materiel, mercenaries, 
 soldiers) or indirectly (silence as assent). This includes the validation or support of faked elections 
 (Chad, Togo).

Anti-French sentiment continues based on perceived economic exploitation and the maintenance of client 
relationships which have often encouraged political and military destabilization (for instance Elf Aquitaine in Congo and 
Angola, Bolloré in Côte d'Ivoire). France has also sheltered exiled former dictators.

The SDECE fatally poisoned Cameroonian rebel leader Félix Moumié in Geneva, Switzerland, bolstering   
the regime of President Ahmadou Ahidjo.
French troops restored Gabonese President Léon M'ba to power in February 1964 following a briefly successful coup d'état with 
troops from Dakar and Brazzaville; the French military also facilitated the succession of Omar Bongo to the presidency 
at M'ba's death in 1967 and dispatched troops to Port-Gentil in May 1990 during popular protests following the death of an 
opposition leader in a government hotel. The latter inc diidents occurred in an atmosphere of hostility towards the authoritarian 
regime of President Omar Bongo. (Reed, Michael C. "Gabon: A neo-colonial enclave of enduring French interest." Journal of  
Modern African Studies, Jun. 1987; [1])
Illegal arms shipments were supplied by France to support the secessionist Republic of Biafra in the Nigerian Civil War.
Camille Gourvenec, an expatriate French intelligence official, commanded Chad's Nomad and National Guard and directed 
the CCER secret service for President François Tombalbaye. It is additionally alleged that the French government was 
involved in the 1973 assassination in Paris of Outel Bono, the most vocal critic of Tombalbaye's dictatorship. (Decalo, 
Historical Dictionary of Chad)
French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and the despotic self-proclaimed Emperor of the Central African Empire, 
Jean-Bédel Bokassa, had a close personal relationship and went on hunting trips together. French companies supplied materials  
for Bokassa's Napoleonic coronation in 1977, attended by a representative of Giscard. France later turned on Bokassa and overthrew 
him, but allowed him to take up exile in Paris. [2]
French mercenary Bob Denard engineered several coups d'état and assassinations in the Comoros on behalf of France.
In October 1990, President François Mitterrand authorized a military intervention in Rwanda by troops stationed in the  

Central African Republic. At the time, the government of Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana, a dictator at the head of a  
one-party state, was under siege from an invasion by Rwandan Patriotic Front that eventually failed. In 1994, a force was sent 
to back the government against an RPF campaign, this time successful. (Meredith, The Fate of Africa, 2005)
The Republic of Djibouti is home to the largest French military base in Africa. The French government backed President [[Hassan  
Gouled Aptidon]]'s one-party state and continues to support his nephew, Ismail Omar Guelleh.

One other comment: User:Tocquevil's comments here are most sensible. The causality effect between the French state support of dictators in former colonies (which is obvious to anyone informed) does not necessarily entails "francophobia" among the former colonized people. What does entail "francophobia" is the latent racism in France which prevents French citizens with origins from former colonies of finding jobs. That's why Quebec is becoming a popular destination of expatriation, where multiculturalism is a bit more accepted. According to these comments, I removed the Haitian Revolution reference, which should be restaured if someone can demonstrate that anti-French sentiment really did grow up significantly. The Peninsula War is to the contrary a very good example, if one takes the pain to underlines that the Spanish elites were mostly francophiles. Don't forget that French was a common language for European elites before the French Revolution, and that explains a large part of francophiles phenomena. Tazmaniacs

PS: have a look at Wikipedia:Avoid using wikilinks. No, seriously, see WP:HEAD#Linking and consider not linking headings. Tazmaniacs 03:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ivory coast

I dont think that the people of Ivory Coast hate the french because the people who shout in the street are the rebels of liberia who try to emerge a riot and everything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.226.40 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 7 July 2007

De Gaulle's Presidencies and Gaullism

Why wasn't there anything covering the De Gaulle's presidencies as an acme of post-war Francophobia? I added some landmarks of Gaullism in the 1960s with my own limited knowledge but I think it has to be covered. Besides, I think this is a very good article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.33.170.251 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 19 July 2007

Robert Graves

I've requested an additional source to support the claim that in 1919 the anti-German sentiment started to diminish in Britain. The only reference given is a quote from a writer of German descent and thus he may have had a POV to express. An anti-French POV it seems. Was his view the common view in Britain as is implied in the article? A reference other than Graves is needed. 125.7.44.167 21:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Graves isn't considered an authority on this subject and the book from which the quote is taken is not a referenced scientific publication but an autobiography. Autobiographies are not a recounting of facts but a recounting of perspective. I will remove the quote if it remains unsupported by other references. 125.7.44.167 12:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And I have put it back. --PBS (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent argument. You must be special. LuciferTom (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Article

This is the worst wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.226.40 (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That my friend is your opinion, not (as you stated it) a matter of fact. May I suggest that if you must inject your views into debates that you prepend the words "I think" or "I believe" to them to prevent yourself from coming over as arrogant by speaking as if the entire population of the planet shares them. 109.149.173.232 (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Clean Up Time

I have added a cite ref "for French often derives from criticisms from the immediate post-World War II period and the way of life of the artistic and philosophic elite of the time", I haven't found a single reference suggesting there was anti-French feeling towards that nation's 'artistic and philosophic elite', in other word's non French people didn't recognise that France's artisitic and philosophic accomplishments differed from anyone else's and certainly not enough to produce a general bias. No, from everything I have read it seems that the antipathy felt towards the French was due to it's perceived military and civilian cowardice.Twobells (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This page is a mess. It is full of unsourced claims. It is purely an opinion piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.92.160 (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this the wrong word?

Should it not be antigallacism or something like that? A phobia is generally a fear rather than a hatred is it not? 109.149.173.232 (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

added historic Francophobia? the Hartlepool monkey hanging

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_hanger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.58.27 (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Frenchmonkeyman (Frenchman)

Seems the nations which have been under French imperialism have gotten wind of the 'cheese eating surrender monkey' thingy re the French. Firstly seems to of stemmed from the naming of a DR Congolese racehorse given the name: 'Frenchmonkeyman' (from the fact it was known to always come last and also know to run the other way) - this got picked up by the wider Congolese society has a slur for 'Frenchman' - using the English words was also delibrate to add further insult to the French. Frenchmonkey as a slur for the French is now doing the rounds in Flanders and Luxemburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.127.247 (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Albanophobia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Haiti, ignored in the survey that is listed

The critical region ignored in the listed survey is, Haiti, who still have financial, medical and other problems, often due to the excessive reparations paid to France, and the continuing exploitation of the region. --68.173.189.62 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

sub-Loirean French

Heard it from a guy from the town of Noyon in Picardy, seemed to be a local slur against other French people that live below the Loire river. Guess it was inspired from the title: "sub-Saharan African". Weirdly enough though, this Noyon guy bore the name Jean Cohen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74 (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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/20120119064702/http://www.vaisse.net/BiblioJustin/Articles/BiblioJustin-FPCS-francophobia-juillet2003.pdf to http://www.vaisse.net/BiblioJustin/Articles/BiblioJustin-FPCS-francophobia-juillet2003.pdf

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) 23:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)