Talk:Attack on Mers-el-Kébir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Air raids on Gibraltar[edit]

@Mathglot: Quite so, there was narrative in the article but it was not citable when the article got a spring clean. Thanks for the reminder. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264: Aha, that makes sense. I merely tagged, but did not remove this, suspecting that something of this sort must underlie it. As I'm a newbie at this article, and you seem to be a veteran, what do you recommend: remove the assertion from the lead, move it to the body and add sourcing, something else? We can always just leave it there for now. Mathglot (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've blanked the sentence temporarily and I'll see if I can find a source. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you've a mind to, see also Military history of Gibraltar during World War II#Vichy French attacks: 1940 and Gibraltar#Contemporary history. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith-264: Oh, and you might be amused by this. Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the body of the article, details of the French reprisal attacks are cited to two sources, "Playfair 1959, p. 142" and "Greene & Massignani 2002, pp. 94–95". A year ago, the text appeared as part of the "Attack" section. In the meantime, the "Attack" section has been split into two subsections, "Attack on Mers-el-Kébir" and "Actions of 8 July", leading to various anomalies, including that the reprisal attacks, which didn't happen on 8 July, now appear in a subsection labelled with that date. I would recommend that the blanking in the Lead is reversed and that the division of the original "Attack" section reviewed.     ←   ZScarpia   12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the sections you mention, does it look better now? Keith-264 (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving details about the attacks on Gibraltar to the "British–Vichy hostilities" section was a sensible thing to do. In the Lead, it might be better to explicitly link the bombings to the attack on the French fleet, describing them as, in some way, a response, rather than leaving readers to assume that, since they are being mentioned, that there must have been a link.     ←   ZScarpia   00:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sources are the trouble but I'll see what I can do. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can dig up too. I think I have a copy of at least one of the cited sources.     ←   ZScarpia   13:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraged French collaboration[edit]

The main result of the attack was the Vichy regime supported Germany during the occupation, French citizens were encouraged to collaborate, recruitment for the Free France movement plummeted, and French forces in North Africa and Syria increased their opposition to British and Free French forces. All of this is detailed in numerous sources such as this one: https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2016/09/22/why-did-the-royal-navy-sink-the-french-fleet-in-world-war-ii/ (Gndk1111 (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Your source is insufficient for the weight you place on it and the edition before disputed edits needs to be retained during a search for consensus. Whether the information merits inclusion in the lead is a separate issue. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is too one-sided, neglecting to mention any of the negative consequences of the attack. Also some historians have asserted the raid was a war crime, this too should be included. (Gndk1111 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I might agree that we need to say there were negative consequences, such as something like "The British attack was almost universally condemned in France and resentment festered for years over what was considered a betrayal by their former ally. Marshal Philippe Pétain, who was appointed the prime minister of France on 16 June, severed diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom on 8 July.". But I am not sure that the views of some historians who have asserted the raid was a war crime should be included in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every biography I had read of Pétain states his government decided to collaborate more closely with Germany as a direct result of the attack. The bombing was not as effective as Churchill had hoped - only two of the four capital French ships were disabled. (Gndk1111 (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Yet the best source you can find are things like warfarehistorynetwork.com?Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biography can be a bit one-eyed, it isn't prudent to rely on them without looking at other RS. Keith-264 (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not own the biographies, I read them years ago from the library. What is wrong with warfarehistorynetwork? The attack may have ultimately led to France handing over its foreign Jews to Germany so the negative consequences need to be mentioned more in the lede. (Gndk1111 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Wiki is biased in favour of secondary sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources, preferably printed [1]. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is massive OR, Much of the Vichy regime was antisemitic anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Allies were largely anti-Semitic. (Gndk1111 (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
So? your argument is that the attack on Mers-el-Kébir encouraged the French to deport jews to Germany to be killed. You need an RS saying that, not your assumptions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Laval himself said it during his trial. However thanks to him French Jews had extremely high survival rates, like foreign Jews in France. Obviously the Germans never told the Vichy authorities about the death camps. (Gndk1111 (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
LOL, so let's see, they were encouraged to do it, but not a lot? Sorry again I am out now, you have not made your case.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Up to 90% of French Jews survived the war thanks to Laval. In contrast only about 10% of Jews in Poland survived the German and Soviet occupations during World War II. (Gndk1111 (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

"British victory"[edit]

Calling the result a British victory is misleading. The raid was unnecessary and encouraged France to collaborate with Germany. The French would have scuttled their fleet, as they did in November 1942. Most importantly of all the British failed to disable half of the French capital ships. (Gndk1111 (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

We go with RS, and theRE are the reason many say it was (overall) A Britsh victory (after all in 1942 France was once more an allied nation)..Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
France never left the allies. (Gndk1111 (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
So they did not surrender?Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Free France was France during the occupation. (Gndk1111 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
So then how could France collaborate with Germany if France was in fact still at war with them? Sorry but you are now getting into contradiction.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Vichy regime collaborated. All the books I have read stated the attacks on Mers-el-Kébir and Dakar caused the collaboration to increase considerably. (Gndk1111 (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
And the Vichy regime joined the allies in 1942. As to causing the collaboration to increase considerably, maybe. But that does not mean it was not a net victory for the Britsh. After all, if it increased collaboration then collaboration was already occurring. Moreover, did that collaboration have an impact on Germany winning the war?Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Germany never had any chance of winning the war, but the active support of the Vichy regime certainly made things easier for the Germans. The forced labourers France provided was vital. The Vichy regime continued as a puppet government until the liberation of France in 1944. (Gndk1111 (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Germany forced labourers from all occupied countries. With that I think this is over. You have not made your case, this is just riddled with OR.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was the return of the forced labourers in the winter of 1945-46 that saw Pétain's popularity finally collapse. (Gndk1111 (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

England's Last War Against France: Fighting Vichy 1940–42 (2010) by Colin Smith worth a look. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Template:Infobox military conflict result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Keith-264 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The British failed to disable two of the capital ships. It is misleading to call the attack a victory. (Gndk1111 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
What do the RS say? Keith-264 (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Several books I have read say the attack was a mistake of Churchill's part, and that it was only half-successful. (Gndk1111 (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Which books? Lyndaship (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both biographies of Pétain I read, and the biography of Laval. The raid encouraged the Vichy government to collaborate with Germany for four years. (Gndk1111 (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
ISBN's, author's, quotes, anything beyond your recollection of what you think they said? Lyndaship (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will see if I can get them from the library again after Christmas. (Gndk1111 (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
The conversation about how the result should be represented has been had on at least one previous occasion and I gave my opinion that the relevant field in the info box should just be left blank, which is one of the options. Information on Wikipedia should, of course, be sourced and neutral. The second requirement means that it is not enough to show that a particular source describes the battle as a victory or defeat, the contents of all reliable sources are supposed to be weighed. You've been asked to justify calling the result mixed in terms of success or failure. You could, in turn, ask if there are any sources which represent the result as anything else.     ←   ZScarpia   11:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Banging on about this instead of producing sources which contradict those that the result is based on is futile. Arguing can't change this, facts from RS can. Keith-264 (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This archived talkpage section was where the content of the 'result' field was previously discussed.
Note the following:
  • You claimed consensus without producing any evidence of how that was reached.
  • You claimed that sources describe the result as a British victory without listing any sources which do.
How about we go through each of the sources cited by the article and then decide on what's neutral depending on what they all say?
As I wrote before, offhand I don't know any sources which explicitly describe the result as an outright British victory.
Your "banging on" remark is wondering into gratuitous personal attack territory.
    ←   ZScarpia   02:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of carping, look at the Analysis section. Be fair you've tried a lot of people's patience. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to editors who want to state factually that the battle resulted in a British victory to provide sources which verify that. It is not either up to me, in the absence of sources stating that, to provide sources stating the opposite, or to "look at the Analysis section" and form an opinion about how the result should be read. There is no obligation to actually include a victory/defeat entry in the infobox. What I am going to do, therefore, is to give editors a month to come up with supporting sources. In the absence of any, I will delete the entry. Alternatively, editors may attempt to show that my reading of the rules is incorrect.     ←   ZScarpia   10:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for you to dictate a deadline for a unilateral edit (unless you want to be reverted). Keith-264 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for you to insist that a "fact" unsupported by citations to reliable sources stays in the article. You've had years to produce even one. And you've not addressed my request: "Alternatively, editors may attempt to show that my reading of the rules is incorrect."
WP:Verifiabilty: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."
There were two previous discussions on the contents of the contents of the infobox:result field[2][3], one initiated in 2010 and one in 2019, both of which are now in the archive. The content of the field has varied over the years. Various editors, including me, have argued that the contents should be changed. As noted, the field can simply be omitted. Policy-based reasons for doing so have been given. Nobody, as far as I can see, has advanced a policy-based reason why the contents of the field should stay as they currently are.
I've raised a request at the Neutrality noticeboard here (though I suspect I may be told to move it to WP:RfC).
    ←   ZScarpia   09:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion resulting from the request I raised at the Neutrality noticeboard is in Archive 96 of that board.     ←   ZScarpia   18:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Quoting the Template documentation so that what it says about the contents of the Result parameter appears somewhere on this talkpage (note that the parameter contents "should reflect what the sources say"):

"result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."

    ←   ZScarpia   11:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Him many British aircrafts were destroyed during the attack?[edit]

It's written in the first para that five British aircrafts were destroyed but in the table, it's 6. Any ideas? ShauryaOMG (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

@DesertPipeline: I reverted your edits because they weren't helpful to an article in BritEng but I'm happy to discuss them here if your wish. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Keith-264: It's not clear to me what about my edits isn't helpful for an article written in British English; I only fixed typographical errors. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't look like typos but I will check again. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"neither side was likely to make an agreement" they can't agree separately; takeoff is a two words, hyphenating is better take-off. <niwiki> – </nowiki> dashes aren't used in this article. {{Nbsp}} can't see the point of a capital N. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Keith-264: Those are fair points; however, considering the changes I made were few, I would have appreciated it more if you had corrected what I did wrong rather than reverting. For instance, I didn't notice that em dashes were used in this article; as you have now informed me of this, I'll fix that sentence which I added en dashes to using em dashes this time. DesertPipeline (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DesertPipeline: Sorry about that, some editors of this article aren't as reasonable. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Keith-264: No harm done; there's no need for you to apologise :) DesertPipeline (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War crime?[edit]

Wasn't an attack on a neutral country regarded as a war crime? (FrancoisDeEstay (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]

As far as I know, no attacking a neutral country is not a war crime. Do you have any RS supporting this idea?Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the attack on Pearl Harbor says it was called a war crime because the US was still officially neutral. (FrancoisDeEstay (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Don't look at other Wikipedia articles for a comparison. The two attacks are different, and have different literature written about them. You need to find a book saying that the attack on Mers-el-Kébir was a war crime. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FrancoisDeEstay -- Pearl Harbor was of course a suprise attack, while Mers el-Kebir was an attack preceded by an announced ultimatum which included a list of alternative acceptable courses of action to avoid any attack. Britain had a very legitimate concern that the French ships might eventually be used to augment Germany's naval might, a factor which was absent in Pearl Harbor... AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do the RS say? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Harbor wasn't a surprise, FDR was informed of the attack on 4 December and he said he was expecting it within days of the Hull note. The Japanese believed the fleet in Hawaii would be used to bolster US forces in China. (FrancoisDeEstay (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Its irrelevant unless RS say it was a war crime, do any RS say it was a war crime?Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor wrote it was an act of realpolitick, but by the rules of war it was a war crime. (FrancoisDeEstay (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Please read wp:or and wp:synthesis (Ohh and wp:v sources must say (explicitly) what you are using them to support).Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English bias[edit]

Has many of the source are British , I genuinely ask the question ? -Did the attack was a victory, it's ambiguous . More importantly it misleads people on the significance , it's not really a remake of Trafalgar - Did the french planned to surrender their fleet to the Germans ? It's perhaps the worst defeat of French , the battle for the internet .

Some misleading media * try to enforce the idea the French fleet was destroyed by Churchill because they goeing to surrender their fleet . We must debunk this fake news .

As has been discussed before, the British substantially achieved their goal of preventing the French fleet in North Africa from being used to aid Germany, while the French leaders dithered ineffectually, and didn't have any particular plan, but presumably they wanted their ships not to be sunk, and to retain freedom of action, but did not succeed in this... AnonMoos (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So do you have any sources that contest this?Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's perhaps the worst defeat of French , the battle for the internet . We need more french source and more french oriented views for balence the article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy defender 2 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then add them, not one is saying you can't. But read wp:rs and wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Do you accept foreign source ? Why have you delated by add ? I usued many internal link , from wipidia themself 

"" The ship managed to escape the harbor during the British attack on Mers-el-Kébir on 3 July and briefly engaged the destroyer HMS Wrestler, together with her sister Lynx. "" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_destroyer_Tigre

What do you need more ...a copy of the Book ? why have you delated my add , you could you send me a PM . Thank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy defender 2 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted as A. you did not cite correctly, B. (as I said) it was poorly written and thus I was unsure what you were trying to say (and the above is not what your edit claimed). Also Wikipedia is not an RS. It might be best if your propose any edit here so we can work on it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obiously Jean Lassaque , les Contre-torpilleurs de 2400 tonnes , l'armistice et l'Attaque de mers el Khébir , P70 -71

What do you need more from a frenchman  ?


I could provide an English source : French Destroyers: Torpilleurs d'Escadre & Contre-Torpilleurs 1922 - 1956" by John Jordan and Jean Moulin

Not as an inline citation. And again, what you have posted here is not what your edit said (which was poorly written). As it was poorly written it was hard to know if what you wrote is what the source wrote. So please tell us what changes you want to make, so we can look at them and then ask for clarification if we are unsure what you are saying.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


As a French i could have some little problem whive grammar and everything . ( Source is another problem ) Could you correct me


The retreat to Toulon and the future of french fleet .

Battleship Strasbourg and several destroyers ( Volta , Le Terrible ,Lynx and Tigre) forced the blocus and retreated back to Toulon , them they were assigned to various french force who remained in Toulon or the colonial empire .

During the retreat the Lynx and the Tigre engage briefly the HMS Wrestler and later the Lynx spoted a torpedos from a swordwish , saving the Battleship from a certain damage .

The most notable fleet in Toulon was the Forces de haute mer which includes the battleship Strasbourg and the destroyers Volta .


OK what is wrong with it, there is no English word "blocus", I assume you mean blockade, but what word does the source use? Second, we already mention the Strasbourg's flight and arrival at Toulon on 4 July (so this just duplicates material we already have) Third The Strasbourg did not run the blockade after the fight, but during it (so it was not part of any aftermath).Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Interesting point , so the article is wrong , because Strasbourg wasn't alone , she escaped whive fives destroyers who gave her escort and briefly engaged british force .

That " succesful retreat " is a french success  ! We must talk about !


I'm ready to bring you all the source i have , in French and in English .

Do you want to work whive for improve that point ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy defender 2 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And we mention it, and the other ships with her (just not by name) have you actialy read our article?Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I folow the article for years ( i'm aware ) The success of the French retreat is a point i want to improve . 


 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy defender 2 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We already have enough about it, in fact far more than you wanted to add.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this article aren't yours .

The french succefully saved one battleship and fives destroyers , one Battleship was sank , two were crippled and one destroyer was grounded . That's a success and we must talk about .... I'm still ready to gave you all the source you need to enforce that point — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy defender 2 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And as I have said, we already do.You are adding nothing we do not already say. And this is now getting so wp:tendentious I will let others take up the slack.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fear i need to be more clear , i want to enforce the action of Strassbourg and the folowing destroyers , particulary Tigre an Lynx . That's exactly what i think i have does .

I'm ready to help . I got many source in both French and English language

Is it maybe possible to add a Non-British source ... in this article 🤔

-A French point of view who ballence the "British victory " The Attack is far from a total sucess ,Provence take the sea fews months later and only Bretagne was definitevely lost , Dunkerque was crippled after a second attack ( who cost three hundred lives ) and returned to Toulon ..despite british effort .

Strasbourg ....retreated back to France ...

I think people coul be lured 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:BF8:9800:64BA:7378:F0C2:31D (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attack or Battle ?[edit]

Is it a legitimate battle ? Did Britain declared war on Vichy ? 2A01:CB00:BF8:9800:C8E3:472E:71C3:BE77 (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, No. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well you edited the article ( again ) .
" The Attack on mers el Khébir ( the Battle of Mers el khébir )' "".
No proof was given on the subject ,I'm sorry and i never read anything about " the Battle of Mers el Khébir "
It's Operation catapult or the Attack on Mers el Khébir .
In French  : L'affaire de mers el Khébir " , la Trajedie de Mers el Khébir
Similarly , i never read about the Battle of Pearl Harbor , I'm sorry 2A01:CB00:BF8:9800:B937:C3B9:E1C2:A1C7 (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overstating effect on the french navy[edit]

I reviewed the table and noted it was in disfavour of the French .

-1 ) In the table , it's say a tugboat was sank , is this really relevant ? -2 ) In the table , it's say the french seaplane tender was damaged . Yes that's true ..i checked on wikipedia "She was lightly damaged by shell splinters during the British attack on Mers-el-Kébir on 3 July 1940, but suffered no casualties. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_seaplane_carrier_Commandant_Teste

Is this really relevant ? Crazy defender 2 (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if the reliable sources say so. Keith-264 (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable source , the same who claim the victory ? Crazy defender 2 (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

@Mdnavman: Good stuff but do we need that many citations? Keith-264 (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Catapult[edit]

Dear watchlisters, As a Frenchperson, I am appalled by the pov-pushing towards embellishing Vichy France by a lot of French in this talk page, but my question is other : I'm curious to know why Operation Catapult possesses its own article in nine languages but does not exist in WP:en, given that it's a British war operation ? (No idea myself) Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English language, not British Wikipedia. B, because this article covers it just fine. Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a strange conception of the parts and the whole, and wikidata people might disagree with you including a more general article within another more particular one (and by the way you're aware Britain does belong to the Anglophone world, are you ?), but hey, I don't care, after all. This is not my area of expertise. thanks for replying.Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If an EngWiki article doesn't overlap this one too much, have a go. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case Anton and the Scuttling of the french fleet[edit]

Why not rename the last paragrath ? Crazy defender 2 (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why, it's short, sharp and to the point. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

@Seahawk-2023: Greetings, I reverted quite a few of your wikilinks because they were duplicates. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Swapped online citations with Rohwer and Hümmelchen (2005) Keith-264 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date of follow-up air attack[edit]

The article says Operation Lever took place 8 July but French battleship Dunkerque says it was 6 July. Housecarl (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki isn't a source so a discrepancy like this needs to be resolved by reference to the sources. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

double use of paragraph[edit]

"The orders to the four French submarines were quickly decoded and London ordered Somerville to act; the boats were unable to close with Force H" is used verbatim two times in a short distance. is this intended or a copy mistake ? 46.15.45.246 (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attack_on_Mers-el-Kébir&oldid=1195518437"