Talk:Anti-French sentiment in the United States

you might want to mention that attempts in recent weeks at boycoitting french products have gone badly: one company campaigners tried to boycott turned out to be swiss; Danone isn't known to be french (because USians say it "Dan-1"), and no-one realised Vivendi owns chunks of Hollywood. You might also concentrate on real issues, like the threat of the US going against the UN.... sheesh, Uncle Ed, what have you been smoking tonight???? -- Tarquin 21:49 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Dude! I had like no idea the US was going against the UN. Is it, like, going to invade itself? Ha, ha, ha! Like imagine battleships totally surrounding 46th St and 1st Ave from the East River (party on, dudes!), what a trip man!! --Surfer Dude 22:01 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Ed, your brand of satire is almost as disrupting as that which it seeks to hold up. ever thought of performance art? ;-) -- Tarquin 22:07 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Can we also mention the French rebuttal to "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys"? i.e. "Burger Eating War Monkeys". cferrero 09:58 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

how do they say it? Is des singes fromage-mangeant de capitulation even close??

--- I find the name "freedom fries" very appropriate. Because that's what happens when countries rush to war, hold prisoners without charge or trial and suspend human rights legislation because of external threats .... freedom fries. -- -- Chris Q 10:10 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

"War is Hell." -- General William Tecumseh Sherman

This article sucks. Unfortunately I'm not sure how to improve it without veering way off-topic. Just the same, it is certainly not NPOV to say that "anti-French sentiment is growing in the US" without also pointing out that anti-US sentiment is growing in most of the rest of the world - especially France, I presume. Similarly, it's fine to refer to the enormous help the French got from the UK, the USA, Canada and other countries during WW2, but it is misleading to do that and then not also mention the burden of fighting that the French took on in WW1 - a far greater burden than the US, let us note. Very convenient to forget this, no doubt. I thought of linking to World War I by way of adding balance - but then I remembered the dreadful bias that the present WW1 entry has: look at the final "end of the war" section - the entire thing is about the contribution of one particular relatively minor combatant, namely the USA, and almost completely ignores the far larger contribution of France and the UK, not to mention the British Commonwealth. Probably the best thing to do would be to delete the whole damn thing and start again, or, if we really want to do some proper Frog-bashing, move it to meta and we can all join in. Tannin 20:49 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Indeed. I wonder, why is there no anti-Russia sentiment? they said they would veto too. I think one thing we do need is an article on thhe veto procedure in NATO. Apparently, the USA has used the veto more often than any other country. Yet when another country uses it, we get this. Underhand and pathetic. -- Tarquin 23:06 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

May I repeat how offended I feel by this article ? Or rather by the fact, it is quite a standalone article. As previously said, I feel not like entering myself in any war such as an anti-american sentiment with any of you (hum...though...). Still, for the past few days, each time I connect myself to the "nearly-american" wikipedia, I find this article or the french fries, or the freedom fries article in the top ten of my watch list, or in the recent changes. It is really beginning to get to my nose. User:anthere

First, for those of you that are feeling left out. THere alrady is an article on Anti-Americanism. How is this any different?

Second, shouldn't it be noted that the whole Freedom Fries thing is not entirely serious? As it is currently worded, it makes it sound like the silly Americans are taking a big stand against something they think will really hurt the French.. renaming French Fries, while the rest of the world laughs it off. In reality, theres only one or two cafeterias in Washington renaming the fries - although there may be a few mom and pop cafes around the country following their lead. But I've always seen it as a tongue-in-cheak jab at the "Frenchies", not a serious boycot of the word "French" on our menues. I can guarantee that most Americans see the French Fry thing as a joke - maybe even a gimmick - but nothing else. There is no serious effort to rename French Fries across the country, even if someone is trying - it won't succeed.

---

It probably ought to be made obvious in the external links that http://www.whitehouse.org is a satire site. -- IHCOYC 20:14 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

---

Since this article is about American anti-French sentiment, I'm moving it to a more specific title. -- Stephen Gilbert

---

This article should be expanded to cover not only the recent rash of anti-French sentiment in the US, but also historical anti-French attitudes in the US. This includes the wave of anti-French sentiment in the US after France's refusal to allow American bombers to fly over French territory to bomb Libya, anti-French sentiment during World War II, anti-Catholic sentiment in the strongly Protestant US (anti-papism going back hundreds of years), and the perception in the US and Israel that the French are (and historically have been) strongly anti-Semitic.

France has long been opposed to US hegemony in Europe. France withdrew from the NATO integrated military structure in 1966 and was widely condemned in the US (and indeed in the rest of NATO at the time). France has also been the driving force behind the European Union, which is seen in the US as France's attempt to dominate its smaller European neighbors.

Might also reference Kubrick's film Paths of Glory which was banned by France because of perceived anti-French sentiment. Chadloder 18:16 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

---

Since I feel this article is too focused on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, I've started a replacement article Temp:Anti-French sentiment in the United States. I will flesh it out as I have time. Feel free to contribute. Chadloder 18:35 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

I have no hard feeling with this idea of you of placing the anti-french sentiment in the us in a larger timeline, but...this stub article of you is imho very POV. Which is why I will put a neutrality notice on top of it. User:anthere

---

France's refusal to endorse the 2003 US plan to invade Iraq is something different from France threats to veto UN decisions. The anti french sentiment refered to in this article was clearly anterior to the french veto from a good bunch of weeks. -User:anthere

I don't understand you, or you don't understand me. There was "Anti-French sentiment in the United States" years ago, well before any sort of Iraq conflict was proposed.

of course. But right now, the article is mostly about recent events

But since the article starts with reference to the Iraq invasion, isn't that the specific "Anti-French sentiment in the United States" we are talking about?

If so, the question arises why the focus on the French when other nations (say Germany) were opposed as well? The reason is because France directly threatened a UN Veto, which signaled (from the US POV) a breakdown in the diplomatic process. If you don't mention the veto threat in the first sentence, you are missing the whole point of the US government's anger at France.

first, I don't think this article is focused on the US governement being angry toward France. It is more general

second, it is possible you did not follow well the past fall events. I assure you the anti-sentiment issue, and the resentement against France began "before" president Chirac stated France would veto. Several weeks before. I agree the veto was the final hit. But the resentment certainly started increasing several weeks before that point.

Or is there something you are trying to say that I misunderstood? -º¡º

Sorry for the coke. Believe it or not, I have never seen it in shops, or heard about it before today...I would be curious to know how much the sales of coca cola have decreased since it was launched. Clearly, this was not an commonly planned move by our embassy, but an isolated marketing plan by an entrepreneur who particularly focused on north african countries (heavy consumers of soft drinks - french prefer wine). -User:anthere

Coke? Huh? I don't know what you are talking about now. -º¡º

He's talking about the Mecca Cola. Someone put in something about "The French have not resorted to boycotting American goods" but I mentioned Mecca Cola which was launched in France. Anthere is pointing out that he's never heard of it and that it was not planned by the French embassy. To be honest, I live in the United States and I've never seen any Freedom Toast or Freedom Fries either, so I'm not sure what your point is, anthere. :) Chadloder 21:10 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

he is a she. I just tried to mention that French goods sales have strongly decreased in the US in the past months, as a result of american consumers volontarily boycotting french products, French people have not "particularly" tried to boycot american products. But sure enough, some entrepreners took the hint, especially to enter north african countries where anti-american sentiment is very strong. That was just a tentative to neutralize the article, just as it is indeed done in the anti-american[?] article, but clearly, if neutralisation in the anti-american article is most welcome, this is not as obvious in this one.

---

media distraction has everything to do with this issue. See the example of Distraction by Scapegoat
A combination of straw man and ad hominem, in which your weakest opponent (or easiest to discredit) is considered as your only important opponent.
Example: If many countries are opposed to our actions, but one of them (say, France) is obviously acting out of self-interest, mention mostly France.

---

I have asked in certain spots for the writers of this article to give specific examples of their claims. It will make the article stronger. Kingturtle 21:18 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

I tried removing this once:

it is possible that the concentration of the U.S. media on France is an example of media distraction.

And it was re-added. I reject it completely. Could it be maybe that the Americans are actually upset at the French more than the Russians because the French have historically been supportive of the US (while they expect opposition from the Russians)? No, of course not! It's got to be media distraction!

There are a lot of possibilities (read "suspicions") harbored by lots of different people. It is also possible that the CIA is controlling the American media with the help Elvis and some aliens from a distant galaxy. Should we add that as well? Also, did I miss out on the introduction of the term media distraction into the English language? Is this a Chomsky invention? Chadloder 21:19 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Then add all the other possibilities, as well as Elvis and aliens. As for the media distraction term, it was accepted by several wikipedians. If you disagree with it, you might check Censorship in the United States

(1) The accepted meaning of NPOV is that we do not have to grant credence to fringe beliefs, such as Elvis or Aliens.

or rather, mention it as a very very very very very uncommon belief

(2) The entire Media distraction thread only entered wikipedia two days ago, so the fact that it hasn't been booted out of censorship yet doesn't mean anything. I suppose that we should take this to Talk:Media distraction -º¡º

--

The French official quoted in the article sums it up best....to paraphrase: We are busy dealing with potential war here; I don't have time to give thought or response to a question about potatoes. Within her answer lies the same point as media distraction. Kingturtle 21:39 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

eh, quite true. Except here, there is a name given to the idea, plus a link to a relevant article. he ! this said, have you thought of looking at the current content of the french embassy in US web site. ant

---

What then, precisely, is the nature of the media distraction alleged by anthere to be happening in American media? Using the word distraction implies that the media is focusing on relationships between America and France to the exclusion of something more important. So tell me -- what is American media not focusing on that they should be focusing on, in your view? The whole concept of censorship implies that there exists an event or a point of view that should be getting coverage (or more coverage), but isn't. And if it's not censorship, but merely distraction, what are we supposedly being distracted from? Chadloder 01:54 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Does this belong here or Talk:Media distraction? -º¡º

It belongs here IMHO. The author of this article states that American media's focus on France is an example of media distraction. That's a POV statement which assumes the media is trying to censor or obscure something by focusing on France. I also happen to disagree with the statement and I wonder how much American media anthere really watches? Chadloder 19:44 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

---

I see no problem with your comment about it being a pov statement, as the article precisely mention while others claim possible that the concentration of the U.S. media on France is an example of media distraction. As it written, it is perfectly taking into account not everybody agree with that statement.

The fact you disagree with that statement yourself is currently irrelevent to the article :-)

The fact I do, or do not watch american news is also irrelevant to the article itself.

But, privately, I will admit the TV channels do not appear to reach my appartment as I have no TV myself. However, I have quite a good radio, a good internet line, and my mail box is functional.

User:anthere

---

It is not a matter of a opinion. I have stated that I believe the statement about media distraction is both factually incorrect and POV. Prefixing "possibly" to it doesn't make it otherwise. Telling me that my opinion is irrelevant is, itself, irrelevant. It is now your responsibility to justify your opinion. If you can't, I will remove it from the article. Chadloder 23:02 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Not only do I concur with Chadloder, I do not believe that "media distraction" as a concept even exists. -º¡º

Well, I have to disagree with both -- "media manipulation" as a concept certainly exists. Have public relations firms been hired to spin the war or the Bush Administration's view? Yes, that is well documented, although coincidentally not repeated often in the press. (search on Charlotte Beers) Are those PR firms capable of making one story bigger to keep another smaller in the papers? Maybe. If you worked for one, would you?

As for France, here's my justification: There are a lot of articles around the web (from before the war) stating the same as this one: International Opinion Largely Opposed To U.S. War In Iraq (http://ia.local6.com/news/1882168/detail) Now a headline like that never did play in the U.S. press, and isn't likely to.

But with Russia, China, Germany and half of Europe opposed to the war, the US view became: Blame France (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wofran123127949feb12,0,3940276.story?coll=ny-worldnews-print).

I am not French but this seems, whether it was done deliberately or just happened, to be a distraction. The important questions are:

• is the U.N. Security Council in favor? (No. All France's fault though, China and Russia don't matter).
• is the U.N. General Council in favor? (No. Must be France's fault)
• is the world leadership in favor? (No, but there's a "coalition" of important countries like Eritrea who are with us in spirit...)

Awww, these questions are too difficult, let's eat our freedom fries and watch the bombs on TV instead...

So that's distraction by media manipulation, in my view. If you're looking for more citations, come to me I have plenty.

Steverapaport 16:19 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

Steve, there was a change in topic somewhere above. My statements regarded "Media Distraction", but you responded regarding "Media Manipulation". My objection to the former still stands, but I never objected to the latter. -º¡º

Okay, sure, if it's just the terminology you mean. But I'm sure it's obvious from the above that I think that "distraction" is one of the functions of media manipulation, possibly a very important one. I am also arguing that the U.S. concentration on France as opposed to on half the world being opposed to its actions are an example of such distraction in the US. Not a topic change, really, just answering all the above questions best I can, so they don't go unopposed. In particular I'm answering Chadloder's question above about what we're being distracted from. Steverapaport 16:45 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

I had (have?) problems with there being an encylopedic article on "Media Distraction" that I don't have with "Media Manipulation". First, there was the terminology or naming of the topic. "Media distraction" is an undefined and practically unused phrase outside of our wikirealm here, and this left people in a vacuum where they could define it however they like. In comparison, "media manipulation" is a widely used phrase with meaning, so we now have lots of sources to draw on instead of just making things up internally.

Regarding the specifics you claim we are being "distracted" away from, and whether this "distraction" happened due to the manipulation of someone, I would say it is all POV. Some may care what the General Assembly thinks, some may prefer to consult the Emperor of Japan, some may prefer the President of the United States and some may prefer the I Ching. There can only be "distraction" in a meaningful sense away from some X if:

1. The X is something that "actually mattered".
2. Attention was shifted to some non-X that doesn't actually matter.
3. This shifting took place due to active manipulation by some party.

-º¡º

Good points, and for the most part I don't disagree directly. Of course your points 1 and 2 are POV, and #3 is usually impossible to prove and may be irrelevant anyway.

Anyway, I have no objection to media distraction being replaced by the more general media manipulation in an encyclopedia. I'm just trying to point out that in *this case* (France, remember), it's a distraction in my POV and that of other people. What is important to whom is always dependent on POV.

I would contend that it is our duty (as citizens, not as Wikipedians), to note instances of distraction of the media, whether deliberate or coincidental, because they can change history. For example, Ted Kennedy is still a senator, despite having drunkenly put his car into a lake and killed his secretary on July 19, 1969, in what would likely have created incredible media pressure for him to quit. The newspapers on July 20, 1969 would likely have crucified him except that there was something more important going on that day.

The first-ever moon landing came on that same day, and Chappaquiddick left the headlines as fast as it entered them.

Now I'm not claiming that either Kennedy or NASA planned this coincidence, just that the public has a limited ability to deal with news, and one big newsworthy item can drive out another.

It's our duty as citizens of any country to keep the media on-track and not chasing distractions. I still claim that France is no more an opponent to the US than is Russia, Germany, or China, and that concentrating on France is simply more newsworthy and therefore, a distraction.

What would please me most would be blanking this article entirely, removing crap like "freedom fries" from the encyclopedia (a less important development than "media distraction", if both truly exist), and having people start watching the news for what's missing as well as for what's present.

Steverapaport 19:02 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, whether a given event "actually matters" or "matters" more than another is always going to be POV. I enjoyed your Kennedy example, but how it relates to "media distraction" is subjective. Should the press have given Kennedy more attention than the Moon? Were the events manipulated by someone in order to direct public attention? Who can say? Even when I read your words, I can't tell if you mean "media distraction" to mean the fact that the public has a limited attention span, of if you mean "media distraction" to describe some hidden process whereby mysterious forces decide what we are going to fed for our media consumption. There are reasons that France is looked at differently than China, even if their UN positions appeared similar on the surface. Talking about those reasons would be more fruitful than all this "a majority of french people" crap. Oh, I agree with you that wikipedia is full of a bunch of useless articles that should be blanked. Unfortunately, I know that if I started blanking them, they would simply be restored by other users including you. -º¡º

Not me, buddy! I don't engage in edit wars directly, ever--I think it's against the spirit of the 'pedia. I also thought "majority of french people" was crap, I think I've fixed it. (My degree was in Math, if I see "majority" I wanna see a citation). But to a mathematician "some" can include "one or two" as well.

As for whether "media distraction" is a term regarding deliberate stuff by mysterious manipulators or just market forces at work, I'll try to clarify:

It doesn't matter, it's worth noticing either way. Even in Wikipedia: a 'pedia can be more than just a running record of the media.

If stuff is going on that is played down by the media, (for any reason or none) but still important, we should note it. Important to whom? Even when we disagree on that, it's worthwhile to argue a bit before deciding.

Steverapaport 09:48 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

---

In regards to media distraction is an undefined and practically unused phrase outside of our wikirealm here...a quick google search finds "media distraction" 110 results. It is a term I've heard as far back as 1994 in media and sociology classes. The term is known and used. Whether it applies to this article is a different story. Kingturtle 17:43 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, and your google search proves my point exactly. Of the three billion pages indexed by google, roughly 150 use the phrase, which in the google scheme of things is practically nothing. Heck, "purple dog" gives nearly ten times that many hits, but that doesn't make it a new breed. More importantly, actually reviewing the hits served for "media distraction" shows that the phrase isn't used in a coherent way. My quick reading discerns at least three meanings other than the one being implied here. -º¡º

Okay okay it's been changed to "media manipulation", but hey just watch the media yourselves a bit and ask if it's getting distracted occasionally. It's not a "dark side" idea, just a meme that can keep your eyes open.

Steverapaport 09:48 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

---

Of course, you can't really expect to demand from some editors to absolutely respect the rule of providing any citation for claim made in the article, without yourself providing support for all your assertions. So, either every claim is supported by citation or evidence, or none really are. user:anthere

No, I do in fact believe that every statement made in the article space should have the potential to be backed up with a specific reference, quotation, or citation. I also believe it is reasonable to ask for a source for statements that you find questionable. -º¡º

---

Filling an article with bracketed statements like (who said this?) (how many people?) is both unprofessional, and undermines the NPOV of the article. If you are unwilling to accept the fact that a significant amount of Americans objected to the actions of the French government, that is your own problem, but do not go into an article and pepper it with your questions in an attempt to undermine the stated information. Likewise, if you are not familar with the fact that France has deployed troops to the CAE and Ivory Coast, do not assume that everyone is just as ignorant. -user:J.J.

There are several reasons for doing this, and I don't think it is inappropriate in all cases. It is a lot quicker and less disruptive to the article than the alternative of deleting the questionable statement and posting a request for clarification in the talk pages. It is also perfectly reasonable to ask what a sentence means when it isn't clear. For example:

It is unclear why one plus one equals two. (who is it unclear to?)

Some people believe that George Bush is the offspring of Satan. (who believes this?)

Would you really prefer that we just delete things we don't understand or agree with, instead of asking for clarification? -º¡º

Why is that anti-Americanism is all the fault of the Americans, but anti-French sentiment in the United States is also the fault of the Americans? Couldn't it be just possible that, if anti-Americanism is the fault of the Americans, then just maybe the anti-French sentiment might be the fault of the French? Or not. Only Americans are the bad guys in the world today. -- Zoe

Yes Zoe, you are correct. America it the nexus of all evil in the modern world and must be stopped at all costs. Any articles that fail to represent this NPOV fact, or to mention the position of the Security Council on this fact, are uncorrect and are to be revised as soon as possible. -º¡º

---

Btw, were french troups alone fighting in Côte d'Ivoire ? Is this really a good example? -User:anthere

In answer to your question, no the French troops are not alone. They are there, outside of UN authority, as part of a "coalition" with Niger, Senegal, Benin, Ghana and Togo. I've therefore taken "unilateral" out of the paragraph which you had moved here. -º¡º

thanx. Since there are unfortunately no articles on wikipedia on the topic, since it is unfortunately a controversial one, and since I have not seen in the news comments about this point being one of those American people were also mad about, I would appreciate a citation. Notice, this is an encyclopedia, and it should answer to people questions, included non-american people questions. I am a very curious type of person, and it is not clear which exactly is the problem there, and who complain about that point, and when. -User:anthere

You're welcome. I'm not the original author of that passage, I just tried to answer your question. -º¡º

thanks. Good job. Interesting. I remove what has little to do with america of course. Otherwise, we will have to rename this page to give a more general meaning.

---