User talk:ItsMeCH11

French battleship Strasbourg

Please stop trying to push a pro-British POV in the article. The fact that the British were wrong is, in fact, a fact, and attempts to justify their actions with ahistorical claims (and without sources, to boot) will not be tolerated. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked. Thank you. Parsecboy (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im not taking a side just making sure the article has a neutral point of view. Im breaking no rules. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, by trying to minimize the fact that the British were mistaken, you are taking a side, which is not acceptable. You can continue to believe what you like, but the reality is, the terms of the French surrender did not permit the Germans to take the ships, and the British wouldn't listen to the French when they told them as much. The idea that they were boils down to a mistranslation and an almost comical misunderstanding of what taking the French ships into German service would entail.

I strongly suggest you read the source provided in the article, as it clearly explains the situation. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the term of surrender didnt permit them to. Eventually they still did. Even though it was years later. During times of war you cant always trust what the enemy says. Removing mistakenly removes nothing from the article. Mistakenly is still an opinion and there are arguments from both sides. So Wikipedia should take a neutral point of view. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, they didn't. They attempted to seize the ships in Toulon, and the French scuttled them. Which is what the French told the British they'd do in 1940. And remember that there were no Axis forces in French Morocco to have even attempted to seize them. The British fears were completely unfounded (in more ways than one), and we should not present them as though they were remotely valid. That is the neutral point of view.

That some British people don't like to admit that fact is not our problem. There are plenty of Americans who don't like to talk about the misdeeds of my country. But that doesn't mean we should whitewash articles of slavery, the expulsion of Native Americans, or the internment of Japanese during World War II. Put another way, what you're trying to do is present a false balance, when there is no balance. Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This quoted from the Wikipedia page on the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir.

(At Italian suggestion, the armistice terms were amended to permit the French fleet temporarily to stay in North African ports, where they might be seized by Italian troops from Libya.)

There was a threat the ships would fall into Axis hands. IE the British where not mistaken ny attacking the fleet. Is it something the UK shouldnt be proud of but the UK had justification to do it. ItsMeCH11 (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citing another Wikipedia article is a non-starter. You need to look at actual reliable sources.

And this is actually a great example of why you can't rely on Wikipedia articles: whoever wrote that sentence took some liberties with the actual source. All that Lacouture says on page 246 is "...the ships for the time being allowed to go to a North African port, far from the German army, if not from the Italian." To imply that the Italians were planning on invading French North Africa (bearing in mind that Tunisia and almost all of Algeria lay between them and the French fleet, when they could hardly get into Egypt later that year) to seize the ships is a misrepresentation of what he says. Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. McSly (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]