Talk:Charles de Gaulle/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merger with the Appeal of 18 June

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It has been suggested that this article be merged with an article about the Appeal of 18 June. Please leave both articles as a separate articles. Thank you. Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the quote

I believe the quote "at sixty-seven, he had no intention to begin a career as a dictator" is wrong as he certainly would not refer to himself in the third person. On Google, there are also no links to "no intention to begin a career as a dictator," suggesting that this is either a totally unique translation or an apocryphal or simply inaccurate quote.

This sentence has been pronounced at the hotel d'Orsay on May 19, 1958 during a famous press conference. The exact sentence is : "Croit-on qu'à 67 ans, je vais commencer une carrière de dictateur ?" ; and by the way, yes, sometimes he was referring to himself in the third person, even referring to himself as "De Gaulle"...

aircraft carrier

It's worth mentioning that there is also an aircraft carrier with this name.

Debré was the actual author

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Debré was the actual author of the text but the political leader who commissioned the text and decided the general framework is always described as 'the author' because he had the text written, told the authors what to include and ultimately decided the shape of the text, usually exercising a veto over what he wanted in or out of his text. Hence in Ireland, for example, the constitution was actually written by John Hearne and Mícheál Ó Gríobhtha, but it is always described as Eamon de Valera's constitution, never Hearne's and Ó Griobhtha's. And Michael Collins is described as the author of the 1922 constitution because it was drafted under a committee under his nominal chairmanship. The same is true of all other constitutions; the author of the text is not described as the author of the constitution, the political leader who ordered its preparation is the person described as the 'author of the constitution', with whomever did the actual drafting called 'author of the text of 'x's constitution'. It is a standard method of reference. FearÉIREANN 20:32, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Fifth French Republic constitution is neither referred as "la Constitution du Général de Goulle" in France. No French would wrote "de Gaulle a écrit la Constitution", plutôt "de Gaulle a inspiré la Constitution" ou "de Gaulle a voulu la Constitution". This has great sense in the French political system : the President has no legislative powers. The Prime Minister can propose a law to the Parliament, not the President. Constiutionally the Constitution was propsed for vote to the parliament by Michel Debré. Ericd 20:42, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You are missing the point completely. The issue is not who procedurally introduced the constitution. Michael Collins was dead when his constitution was introduced. A constitution is described as being by the person who was responsible, theoretically for its preparation. The French constitution is always described internationally as being de Gaulle's constitution, never Debré's; he was merely the author of the text, just as de Valera is described as being the author of the Irish constitution, even though when it came to parliamentary debates it was shown that he had a poor understanding of what was in it and was it meant and the text was produced in two languages by two different people, while Collins rarely even attended the Committee under his nominal chairmanship that drafted the 1922 constitution and was dead when it was in fact introduced by W. T. Cosgrave, who is never ever described as its author. Under political science, the titles "author of the constitution" and "author of the text of the constitution" are not always the same people. Political scientists refer to Nehru's constitution, de Valera's constitution, Karamanlis' constitution, de Gaulle's constitution etc even though they may never have written a word and even have never been involved in its legislative enactment, simply because they may have laid down the perameters to the drafter as to what it should contain, may have been the founder of the new state or republic or may simply have been the personification or the era in which the drafting took place. FearÉIREANN 10:18, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've only ever heard of it described as "the Constitution of the Fifth Republic" Jhobson1 16:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've cut

I've cut : "His strong nationalism and a certain level of economic weakness were used against him. " The French economy was really strong around 1965 the return of the pieds-noirs instead of bringing recession give a huge boost to the economy. Reason for the failure od de Gaulle are complex in 1965 among them : Jean Lecanuet and François Mitterand made a very good canpaign and made good use of TV while de Gaulle didn't use his whole TV time. The supporter of French Algeria refused to vote for de Gaulle that was considered as a traitor. Supporter of European Union voted for Lecanuet.... Ericd 15:26, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Was de Gaulle influenced by J.F.C. Fuller

Was de Gaulle influenced by J.F.C. Fuller ? Ericd 15:57, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I read somewhere that de Gaulle was an Intelligence agent in Syria for a part of his pre-WWII carreer, but I don't have reliable sources. Did someone know more ? Ericd 10:35, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

He did indeed serve briefly in (then French) Syria in the late 1920s.

I've added his career in Poland. It's strange that this campaign, which so heavily influenced him (in this campiang he sketched his first ideas), was not mentioned in the article.

I'm tempted to revert you edit

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tobby I'm tempted to revert you edit. IMO the communist party position wasn't driven by propangada purposes. Many communists were really fearing the advent of a repressive military regime at that time (they were several militants killed at Charonne Station before). Ericd 20:58, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

the following changes to the article

I have made the following changes to the article: 1- I have deleted the middle names of de Gaulle at the beginning of the article. Middle names are NEVER EVER used in France, except in the most formal documents such as mariage certificates and passports, but at any rate they never appear in dictionaries and encyclopedia. 2- I have added one section about the formative years 3- I have explained more clearly the whereabouts of his departure to London in June 1940 4- I have provided the exact quote about starting a carrer as a dictator at age 67 5- I have broken up the Fifth Republic section into three sections. I have written most of the Politique de grandeur section 6- I have corrected several small factual errors all throughout the article 7- I have added some pictures Hardouin 00:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why take out information? He has the middle names. For many people, middle names are rarely used in English, and yet we still list them here. john k 05:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If so, then can you explain me why such French historical figures as Georges Pompidou, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing or François Mitterrand have no middle names listed here on Wikipedia? If you were to add the middle names to all the French people on Wikipedia, good luck ! I think adding all the middle names is actually counterproductive: you have the delusion of informing better people, but you actually confuse people who are not familiar with the nitty-gritties of France. People end up not knowing what is actually the real name of the person, in that case Charles. I would also like to point out to the fact that in France some people are not known by their first christian name, but by their second or third ! So listing all the christian names leads to not knowing for sure what the real name is. In that case, is it André de Gaulle? Joseph de Gaulle? It's not a problem for French people who know who de Gaulle is. But it may be a problem for international readers not familiar with the character. If a US high school kid is gonna use this article for a paper or presentation, he might find it bewildering. Finally, you cannot deny the fact that middle names are much more widely used in the English speaking world than in France. They are part of the name, such as George W. Bush. You would never find Charles A.J.M. de Gaulle, nobody writes like that in France. If you have a look at the official website of the presidential palace in Paris, which lists all the former French presidents, you'll see they do not put middle names. Encyclopédie Larousse does not put middle names. Encyclopaedia Universalis does not put middle names. Anyway, long explanation here, but maybe we will set precedent. lol Hardouin 10:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that middle names are used regularly in other countries, but they aren't. Some US politicians use middle initials because they think it makes them look more impressive (in GWB's case it's also to distinguish him from his father, presumably), but most people don't use their middle names or initials at all (I have two middle names and I never use them, and I don't know anyone who uses more than one Christian name or a Christian name and an initial). I doubt many people know that Tony Blair is called "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair", and no one would ever call him that, and yet that's what's at the beginning of his article. And the suggestion that people wouldn't know which name is used when it's the only one in the title of the article is a little odd, to say the least. As to why other articles don't have middle names, it's probably more to do with people not knowing them than with a deliberate decision to leave them out (and if French sources are being as unhelpful as you say, I can't blame them for not knowing). An encyclopaedia is supposed to supply information, and I can't think of any possible disadvantage that supplying a person's full name could bring about. Proteus (Talk) 12:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, there are people who use several initials - AJP Taylor, for instance. Lord Halifax was known as EFL Wood before he got his peerage. And so on. But, yeah, basically. john k 17:41, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me we are like the Byzantines arguing over the gender of angels while the Turks were besieging Constantinopolis. So I will not add endlessly to that thread. I will just say this, with a totally un-controversial tone: I am understanding the goal of Wikipedia is to be a world multilingual and multicultural encyclopedia, reflecting the cultures and customs of all the countries of the world, and not merely yet another "anglo-saxon" encyclopedia. Thus, as I have noticed, names are always listed as is customary in each native country: English and American names of people list middle names, as is customary there (e.g.: Franklin Delanoe Roosevelt, John Fitzgerald Kennedy), Chinese names of people appear with the family name first as is customary in China (hence Mao Zedong... if you were to write this name following the English pattern of first middle last name that would give: Zedong Runzhi Mao or Dong Ze Mao, depending what you consider a middle name here !). So, logically, I thought French names of people should appear as is customary in France, i.e. without middle names. Of course, I agree an encyclopedia should list as much information as possible, BUT ONLY information that is relevant to the reader! I mean, if I follow you, why didn't we also include de Gaulle's height? color of eye? blood group? exact amount of military decorations received? street address of birth place? The list could go on. In France there is a saying: "Trop d'information tue l'information" ("Too much information kills information").

Of course, the whole question is then what's relevant to the reader, and what's not, and who decide it. That's what the people in charge of Wikipedia should figure out, no?

Finally, to finish confusing people, in the rare instances when a French full name is written, it DOES NOT contain hyphens. So the full name listed in the article is wrong anyway. Hyphens in French are used only to show that a christian name is a compounded name, e.g. "Jean-Philippe" is ONE christian name, "Jean Philippe" are TWO christian names. One example to help understand, my grand aunt full name was (I delete the family name) "Marie-Antoinette Paule Ernestine", she had thus 3 christian names, and in most occasions of life she went by her first name "Marie-Antoinette" only. So the full name of de Gaulle should in any case be written "Charles André Joseph Marie de Gaulle". But maybe we can solve our angels' gender controversy by starting the article like this:

Charles de Gaulle, full name: Charles André Joseph Marie de Gaulle (November 22, 1890...

Does anyone agree? Hardouin 18:30, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Wikipedia standard seems to put the most often used name as title, to cite the full name first within in the article body and the colloquial name second (sometimes not even citing the most used name at all in the upper page sum-up, since it is in the title, after all). Examples? Bill Clinton and Tony Blair of Anglo-Saxon nations, but also others like Gerhard Schröder. I would think this article should follow that custom. --Liberlogos 00:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"C'était de Gaulle"... or was it De Gaulle?

I remember having read in a French magazine a letter from a reader asking why the last edition wrote the general's name the way they did. The reader pointed out that the name was of dutch roots (I believe that's what was written) and that the dutch tradition commanded the other spelling. The publication answered that, although the reader was right, the general himself had always insisted on the other spelling. Now, I believe the spelling prefered by the general was mentioned as De Gaulle, and the dutch spelling was de Gaulle. Is there a De Gaulle expert or Dutch language expert reading this who can come to our rescue? If the general prefered De Gaulle, I certainly think the main article should be titled as such and the alternate spelling be the redirect page. --Liberlogos 23:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

De Gaulle's name is not of Dutch origins. I know it is a die-hard legend in France, probably because de Gaulle was born in Lille near Dutch speaking territories, and a name starting with "de" is typical in Dutch, but actually it is his mother's side who was from the area of Lille, NOT his father's family, from whom he owes his family name. The "de Gaulle" are a very old family of aristocratic decent, originating in Normandy in the 14th century, local knights of the king of France defending Normandy against the English during the War of Hundred Years (History is ironical I guess!). This fact was confirmed recently by de Gaulle's son in the book he published about his father last year. "de" in French means "of" and is typical of French aristocratic names, equivalent to Von in Germany, and Van in Holland. During the French Revolution, like many aristocrats, the de Gaulle family changed their name into Gaulle, without the "de", to avoid problems with the revolutionaries. After the revolution they put the "de" again. In France, de Gaulle's name is listed under letter G, and not under letter D. This is customary for aristocratic names. But the family was always discreet about its aristocratic origins, actually I think many French people would be surprised to know that de Gaulle is really an aristocratic name (many names starting with "de" in France are fake, and not aristocratic at all). It's only with the book published by his son last year that the point was made clear.

193.114.111.34 19:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In Dutch small articles like "de" have their case depend on context. If used without first name or "Mr" then we Dutch use lowercase, if used alone we use uppercase. For sorting, the articles are always ignored. Therefore: Piet van Gogh, Van Gogh, De Heer van Gogh.

Third country to launch a satellite after USSR and US in 1965?

There may be a problem with ambiguity in regards to the statement that France was the third country in the world to launch a satellite after the USSR and US.

Canada launched its Alouette I research satellite on Sept 29, 1962 on a Thor/Agena rocket, three years prior to the French satellite.

References: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/reg/7/millennium/alouette/alouette_impact.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alouette_1

Although the satellite was completely Canadian in design and development, the rocket was of US origin and the launch was at Vandenburg.

So ... if France used its own delivery system, then yes it was the third country to do so; but the statement should be modified to reflect this statement. Otherwise, the modification should reflect that France had the fourth satellite in orbit, not the third.

Regards, George Cummings (Montreal)

Diamant Rocket + Asterix satellite. Honestly the satellite was very small and not very useful IMO, but I think France was the third country to built a delivery system. Ericd 22:13, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The French satellite was called A-1 (standing in a typical military terse style for Armée-1, but later nicknamed Astérix by the media), and was launched by French technicians using a French-designed rocket of the Diamant family. The launch pad was temporarily in the Sahara Desert in newly independent Algeria, and was later moved to French Guiana. So you cannot really compare this with the Canadian satellite which was launched by US technicians using a US rocket. To me the sentence "France was the third country in the world to launch a satellite after the US and USSR" clearly implies that the rocket was French. As a matter of comparison, there have been many French astronauts who went into space on Russian or US rockets, but never on a French or European rocket so far. Nobody would write that France have launched some men into space. So to me the sentence clearly implies the use of a French delivery system. Now if you can think of a cleverer way to rephrase the sentence (without being too convoluted), please let us know. Hardouin 13:17, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Le Machin

From the article : "De Gaulle is famously quoted for nicknaming the United Nations le Machin ("the Thing")."

The Thing = La Chose le Machin is more pejorative... It could also be translated as "the Device" who has a better idea ? Ericd 19:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Thing" in English can be used in quite an informal context, as is "machin" in French. "Device", on the other hand, is a rather formal word. I don't think it is suitable. Hardouin 11:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is that portrait new to this page? I don't recall seeing it before. Rhymeless 03:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Naming issues

"Most avenues or streets which are called after de Gaulle use this term (e.g. avenue du général de Gaulle), but there are some exceptions, such as Charles de Gaulle Airport (aéroport de Roissy-Charles de Gaulle). In left-wing municipalities, when naming streets, Charles de Gaulle is sometimes preferred over général de Gaulle, a term that has always irked the left, even though it is used all across the political spectrum nowadays. People who itch at the military, or who want to distance themselves from de Gaulle, use Charles de Gaulle instead of général de Gaulle. Charles de Gaulle is supposedly more neutral, but général de Gaulle is now so widely accepted that using Charles de Gaulle in conversation definitely carries a feeling of distance, or covert criticism. One can guess the feeling of someone toward Gaullism simply by watching whether they use général de Gaulle or Charles de Gaulle."

I think this is quite exaggerated and POV, don't you think? David.Monniaux 05:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Montreal speech edits

I have reverted all the recent edits about the Montreal speech by De Gaulle. The information is still available in the History of this article for those wishing to copy and paste it in the relevant articles about Québec and Canada, or even to create a dedicated article to that speech. More generally, could people stop adding lines after lines of political edits about that speech? With all due respect to Canada, still the Montreal speech is an extremely EXTREMELY minor event in the overall life of De Gaulle. To have this article using as much space for this speech as for the role of De Gaulle in 1940 is simply grotesque. So if English and French Canadians want to settle accounts, can they please do that outside of this article? Thank you. Hardouin 00:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Images

Most of the images currently on this page lack info and are tagged as "unverified". Anyone who can identify the source and/or copyright status of any of these images is encouraged to do so. (Those unfamiliar with Wikipedia image use policy can read Wikipedia:Images and associated pages.) Thanks, -- Infrogmation 06:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page move discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

{from Wikipedia:Requested moves)

Charles de Gaulle → Charles De Gaulle

The name is not French nobility (like "Armand-Jean du Plessis de Richelieu" for instance), but a germanic name. The "De" is not the French preposition "of", but a for of Germaic "der" which is part of the name (actually "De Gaulle" means "der Wahl", "the wall"). The capital "D" is in order -- that's also why one says "De Gaulle did that..." instead of just "Gaulle did that..." which would be in order in case of nobility ("Richelieu did that..." is the proper form for nobility). Rama 23:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Your premise is incorrect. See the article's talk page, see French Wikipedia's article which is as http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle, see also a quick google for de gaulle site:fr Jooler

The French page does mention that the correct spelling is "De Gaulle", though it might be often (mis)spelled with "de"; the book which is spoken about in the talk page is not cited (it might be De Gaulle, mon père, but I haven't found anything about this on the web), and everywhere I have checked nobility is infirmed. The autoritative site http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org make not mention of this. I wonder wether this mention on the talk page was not a hoax. In any case, if there was indeed a case for nobility, I'd find it very supsicious that no mention at all would be made on the Franch wikipedia -- the articl is quite complete. Rama 23:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose A quick google news search suggests that, with the exception of Middle East sources, English speaking news sources nearly universally spell the name with a lower case "d". Appeal to French orthography and etymology notwithstanding, his name is usually rendered in English as "Charles de Gaulle". A redirect already exists at Charles De Gaulle to catch the occasional person who knows and uses the French spelling. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose In nearly 40 years of reading about the man, I have never seen it suggested the upper-case "D" is correct except at the beginning of a sentence when referring to him. Also note that the name of CDG airport on the Aeroports de Paris website (www.adp.fr) is "Charles de Gaulle". -- Arwel 03:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - this is an argument from correctness, which may or not be accurate (first I've heard of it), but in any case clearly loses out to Wikipedia convention on common usage. Rd232 13:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. He is "de Gaulle" in both French and English sources. Yes, "de Gaulle" is a surname not a title of nobility, but surnames can and often do start with lower case letters. Gdr 14:05, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
Oppose. The French page doesn't mention that the correct spelling is "De Gaulle". It written that "De Gaulle" is more "logical". I'm pretty sure that de Gaulle was written "de Gaulle" on his birth certificate thus legally this is his name. Ericd 22:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Rama, the mention on this talk page above, dated July 15, 2004, which I wrote, is not a hoax! Thank you. The de Gaulle family had indeed aristocratic origins, which the son of de Gaulle confirmed in the book De Gaulle, mon père. The oldest known ancestor is Richard de Gaulle who was an equerry of King Philip Augustus of France, and who was enfeoffed in Normandy in 1210, very near the border of Ile-de-France. Around the time of Joan of Arc there's a Jehan de Gaulle who fought during the Battle of Agincourt. The exact origin of the name is not quite clear (there's a genealogical review in France (Généalogie-Magazine) that had a dossier about de Gaulle's ancestry, and this maybe would give a final answer, but I don't have it with me). However, I don't see how the name de Gaulle could come from Dutch origins, since the family was in Normandy since remote times. Yes, de Gaulle was born in Lille, in previously Dutch speaking area, but it is his mother's family who was from French flanders (formerly Dutch speaking), not his father's family who has no connection with Flanders whatsoever. Hardouin 16:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't know why the name has reappeared with an upper case "D"; the official French government site (http://www.gouvernement.fr/gouvernement/defense-et-securite-le-chef-de-l-etat-fixe-le-cap), the Fondation Charles de Gaulle (http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/) and the article on Wiki.fr (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle) all spell the name with a lower case "d". This is the standard spelling in both English and in French unless the name appears at the beginning of a sentence. Mikeo1938 (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, having a "de" before your family name does not make you a noble man (see Jean-Baptiste Colbert or Nicolas Fouquet, who are considered to be from the greatest nobility, and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing or Jean de Lattre de Tassigny, who where not noble at all), nor it is to have some French, German or (why not) Chinese etymology in your patronymic. What makes you - rather "made you" - noble was your "lettres de noblesse" from the king, or simply the job that you had in this time (if you held a certain position in the society like judge or minister or any high office you may think about - except, in theory, trade and industry). To be from noble ascent or not has absolutly no meaning anymore today and does not play any role. As for the past it did not play the role whe often think it had : the only really important title in the "Ancien Régime" was the one of "Duc", the rest was often given "par complaisance" or for money problems (a way for the king to fill up the treasury because you had to pay for it). In one word, to be noble in the ancient times was just like being in the Who's Who today. Nothing more. The modern view about nobility is of pure fantasy. De Gaulle himself never made any mention of it, nor private nor public, and I doubt he would have pride himself to be the son of a duke had he been one. Now, for the origins of his family, there is no proof at all that the de Gaulle that you find in the Midddle Ages in Normandy should be related to Charles. No proof also that the name de Gaulle should be from Dutch origins. Remember all of this is only speculation, perhaps true, perhaps not - and check your informations. The assured facts are the following : his first certain ancestors from his father side where traders in Champagne in the 17th century. The family then bought some office to become lawyers and moved to Paris in the 18th century. They may have been considered as noble then since two of Charles de Gaulle's direct ancestors held an office in the "Parlement de Paris", but I never saw any mention of it quoting some real document. Anyhow Charles de Gaulle was born in a 20 years old Republic (1890), and his father family, made of historians, writers and teachers, penniless intellectuals, was of much more humble condition than his mother side, tipically bourgeois and much richer, who used to play a real role in the northern France society. For further reading on de Gaulle's family see : J. Valynseele and N. Dreneau, La parentèle de Charles et Yvonne de Gaulle, ed. Patrice Du Puy. The best work on this topic. To undestand the process of ennoblement in France see : [1] To catch a glimpse of what is/was French nobility : [2] And to have a more detailed vue of the "particule" problem in the French names : [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.61.129 (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

article used as a source

Check out this letter to the editor of The Daily Texan. The writer uses this article as a stick to beat the paper for inaccuracies. To qoute, "Next time you accuse an individual of being a mass murder, perhaps you should bother checking your facts first. Perhaps a quick read through Wikipedia.com's articles on "de Gaulle" and "the Algeria Conflict" would have clarified the facts for you.". pamri 07:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

With the recent edits by user ProhibitOnions (a French bashing screenname?), the article is reflecting more and more personal points of view. ProhibitOnion seems to have a deep hatred for de Gaulle. I personaly think that in this article we should neither worship nor denigrate the personality and actions of de Gaulle. We should just try as much as possible to present his life and his actions in a factual neutral way. All the comments about how much people in the UK and in the US disliked the policy of de Gaulle are a bit out of place. There are about 180 countries in the world. If we start to list all the feelings toward de Gaulle in all these 180 countries, then this article will become a real mess. As far as I know, when we have articles about Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan, these articles do not tell us what Chinese, German, or French people thought about these two leaders. So why should the de Gaulle article list what UK and US public opinions thought about de Gaulle? If we start listing public opinions feelings, then we could write something about how Brazilian, Mexican, or Argentinian public opinions loved de Gaulle frequent snubing at the US, or how African and Asian public opinions supported his rejection of a bipolar world. The world is not just made up of the US and the UK. Hardouin 12:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you need a history lesson, Hardouin. Who were the two main Allied countries who fought for and liberated France (at massive cost/loss of life)? Relationships between Churchill, De Gaulle and Roosevelt were fractious, to say the least, and so the opinions of these two countries are of course important as they influenced the way the war developed. I don't remember Brazil, Mexico or Argentina fighting in and liberating France.82.32.238.139 14:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I also find very partial all those edit about the minor role played by the Free French forces and the fact that the UK a USA were the liberators of France. So what ? None of the contributors to this article will deny this. The Free French forces fough with with the Allied and de Gaulle is more to praise than to blame for this. Ericd 19:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Hardouin, my username stems from my own dislike of onions, the vegetable. I hadn't thought of any connection to the Hexagon until now. Whatever the case, the article is a current featured article candidate, so whatever I added can't have been that bad.

As far as any "personal" "hatred" of CDG goes, it is hardly "neutral" to describe many of his actions and statements without pointing out that they often had strong repercussions among France's notional allies; certainly, outside France he was, and remains, a controversial figure. Among his actions that brought this about: Lecturing the Americans about Vietnam, keeping the British out of the EEC, withdrawing from the NATO command structure but staying in the alliance, telling Quebeckers to separate from Canada, switching sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and claiming to be a "counterweight" to the western alliance while being part of it.

Do these actions have something in common? Yes: They were gesture politics. Many of these shows of independence were designed for a domestic audience and widely applauded, and from a French perspective this may seem to be the end of the story. But his audacious political statements were often regarded as empty, and usually counterproductive, abroad. In the case of the Montreal speech, which Hardoin deleted at one point because it was an ostensibly "minor" issue, it was not seen that way in Canada, where a visiting head of state was seen to be encouraging a separatist movement. This was one of the few occasions in which the French press later wondered whether he'd gone too far; and perhaps it was analyzed too much in Canada (he had failed to liberate France, so he wanted to liberate Quebec instead; the usual "spitting on the graves of France's liberators"; etc. etc.). But it was, for one of France's closest allies, the moment for which he will be remembered.

It's hard to think of a country outside France where the consensus on CDG is overwhelmingly positive; for the Poles, he was the brave soldier and brilliant strategist who helped them defend their independence against the Soviets in 1920, but he was quick to abandon them (the "First Ally" that had never collaborated) to the Soviets as WWII ended and to claim France, not Poland, as one of the victors. To other countries of Central Europe, he was happy to cozy up to the Soviet Union, seemingly accepting the USSR's "sphere of influence" (even if the issue was more complicated and France was ultimately an anti-communist power). For the British, he was the heroic general who stood up to the Nazis, but he was also the one who told the French they had liberated themselves, and who later kept Britain out of the EEC for a mixture of ideological and commercial reasons; to the Americans he was an unreliable ally whose talk of a "counterweight" was little more than bluster, but hardly helpful in the face of the communist threat.

Whether these positions are "correct" is not the point, and few denied he was a savvy politician. But, as you point out, he frequently "snubbed" the US, Britain, and other allies, sometimes playing to rather base prejudices in other countries.

Hardoin mentions other important political figures: If the articles about Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and the like did not point out there was great resistance to their policies, that they were at times broadly unpopular abroad, and that they often followed a course that went against the conventional wisdom, then these articles would be incomplete.

--ProhibitOnions 21:13, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

An excellent critique. It makes me wonder, why isn't this general contrast of opinion between within France and outside mentioned in the article? Canking 23:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A safe guess is because such concepts as "outside France" make no sense. Rama 23:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of being patronizing Rama, you could have a little more tact and ask what I mean. Essentially, since this article is not and cannot be complete fact, there certainly is opinion within it. The opinion has to come from somewhere. At the end of the article, perhaps in another section that mentions the various views on his legacy. Canking 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam war

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The fact that the Vietnam war has it roots in French colonialism is out of topic there :

De Gaulle had no role in the Indochina war that was started by the Fourth Republic, a regime that de Gaulle always considered as inefficient.

De Gaulle's policy was to give independance to the colonies. In fact it's reported by Pierre Messmer than he stated something like "no country can maintain a empire in the long run, even USSR".

In no way the French embarked the USA in their colonial war. What the US did in Vietnam had nothing to do with a restoration of the French Empire. I don't see why France should have supported them.

The Fourth Republic governements met very few support from USA when they stated that they were "fighting communism".

I'm pretty sure that de Gaulle was convinced that the Vietnam war was unwinable for the USA, why should he support something that he considered as a mistake ?

Ericd 17:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uuuh? The war in Indochina was heavily supported by the US, as far as I know. David.Monniaux 19:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Read the paragraph again; it says that CDG's Phnom Penh speech ultimately may have been right about the pointlessness of the war. However, it displayed a familiar lack of tact, as many in the US felt they were "trying to clean up the mess the French left behind." --ProhibitOnions 22:14, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

The French IVth Republic governements not especially de Gaulle... However if the solution was military (and history proved it was not) why did the US refuse air strikes at Dien-Bien-Phu ? Ericd 21:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Eisenhower thought the war had gone on too long already, and that the US had already pushed the Viet Minh too far towards the Soviets as it was. The initial support had been given by Truman, after all, and Eisenhower was left holding the bag so to speak. Air strikes would have embroiled the US in a war in Asia, when to a certaine extent Eisenhower had been elected to get the US out of one (Korea). The Kennedy folks later reversed this course and involved the US in Indochina directly.

The constitution and the colonies

The colonies (Algeria was officially a part of France, not a colony) were given the choice between immediate independence and the new constitution. All colonies voted for the new constitution except Guinea, which thus became the first French African colony to gain independence, at the cost of the immediate ending of all French assistance.

Is that exact? I thought that the colonies had 3 choices:

stay inside France (see the establishment of DOMs and TOMs)
be outright independent
be in the French Community (a short-lived attempt at a French Commonwealth). David.Monniaux 08:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some changes

I think it would be accurate to re-examine the following points, which are dubious according to me : - "Their social ideas were also more liberal". I think "liberal" is not suited for such a family - in French, De Gaulle would not be said as being a "libėral", and in English neither -. "labor-friendly" would be better.

The word "liberal" should be avoided, or at least used with caution, since it means different things to different people or countries. Especially since on en: many Americans apply it indifferently to mean "left-wing".

- "He was promoted to major and offered possibility of a further career in Poland". Are you sure that after being a captain, he was promoted major ? Major is a lower rank than captain ...

It's US terminology for "commander". If I remember well, "major" in France is a NCO rank in certain forces.

- "Prime Minister Paul Reynaud promoted him provisional brigadier general". "Brigadier general" sounds weird, since this was not used for a general since the royalty. Moreover, "brigadier" is a very low rank in the police. "Général de brigade" would be better.

- "De Gaulle was elected President by the parliament with 78% of the vote". He was not elected by the parliament, but by a special electoral body composed of "great voters" (delegates of city councils, "conseillers généraux" and so on).

The English phrase for this is "electoral college".

- "Internationally he rebuffed both the United States and the Soviet Union." This is going too far ; he was not between West and East, but he wanted France to be independent INSIDE the western world. Anti-communism was a steady tread in gaullism.

- "Although his supporters would argue that subsequent British ambivalence toward the EU justified his fears, many Britons took De Gaulle's "non" as a deep insult. British commentators have suggested that Britain's later lack of enthusiasm for the EU was due precisely to it being a project to which Britain was not invited during its formative years. As a result of De Gaulle's snub, it is asserted, instead of genuinely embracing all European democracies, the EU became a platform tailor-made for French ambitions but serving British needs poorly." This is repeted twice (1958-1962 and 1962-1968) and is unaccurate : Britain WAS invited to the EU during its formative years, but Churchill, though a supporter of the EU idea, refused, for he thought it was a "continental" thing. The end of the passage is over-simplistic UKIP propaganda.

- On the redaction of the constitution : CDG was not president at this time, but President of the Ministers Council (Prime Minister) and Debré was Minister of Justice. The constitution was a compromise between both of them (Debré wanted a British-style parliamentary system, CDG wanted a strong president), and the project was co-writed by a consultative committee. So I would not say that CDG "wrote" the constitution, but "inspired" it (esp. through the "Discours de Bayeux", a famous speech in 1946, rejecting the constitution of the 4th Republic. This speech is the description of De Gaulle's constitutional ideas which took shape in 1958, so it would very relevant to mention it.)

- In the passage about CDG and the EU, it would be accurate to include a sentence about the "politique de la chaise vide" (or empty-chair policy) in the EU ministers council ; France being unrepresented, it blocked the EU institutions. CDG wanted a more intergouvernmental and less federalist-style management in the EU institutions.

- in the passage about May 1968, I would mention the "Accords de Grenelle", which ended the workers strike which solidarized with the students, so the students were alone in strike again. (labour-employers agreements about salaries and trade-unions representation inside the companies to end the general strike).

- The constitution and the colonies. Oversea territories voted for the referendum about the constitution : - if the answer was "no", it meant the immediate independence (Ghana) ; - if the answer was "yes", then the local assembly had to choose between the integration in the French Republic (DOM-TOM) or the associate status inside the French Union (short-lived).

It's the first time I participate to a discussion in a Wikipedia article, so I would like somebody more into the system to check the changes I propose and to make them.

Brigadier general is the English translation of général de brigade. It ought to be left as it is. On the other hand, I totally agree with what you say about de Gaulle and British entry into the UK. The article was much more neutral on that point before, until the apparently anti-de Gaulle user ProhibitOnions completely rewrote the chapter about de Gaulle presidency, and wrote the entire passage about British entry that you quoted. It needs to be reverted back to the original neutral article. Hardouin 17:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see my remarks in the passage above. If you have a better way to phrase the British cynicism about the EU as a "French project" please do so. If you read the passage again, it is not "UKIP propaganda" but an attempt to express in a few words one common, and in this case pertinent, form of British disillusionment with the EEC, which was voiced frequently around the time of accession and before the 1975 British referendum on remaining within the union. --ProhibitOnions 21:24, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

de Gaulle's most infamous quote

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Among the French (I can say this since I am French myself), most of us know de Gaulle's most infamous quote that is sometimes used to dishonour him or to try to legitimate harsh actions against immigration: « C'est très bien qu'il y ait des Français jaunes, des Français noirs, des Français bruns. Ils montrent que la France est ouverte à toutes les races et qu'elle a une vocation universelle. Mais à condition qu'ils restent une petite minorité. Sinon la France ne serait plus la France. Nous sommes quand même avant tout un peuple européen de race blanche, de culture grecque et latine, et de religion chrétienne. Essayez d'intégrer de l'huile et du vinaigre. Agitez la bouteille. Au bout d'un moment, ils se sépareront de nouveau. Les Arabes sont les Arabes, les Français sont les Français. Vous croyez que le corps français peut absorber dix millions de musulmans qui demain seront vingt millions et après-demain quarante ? Si nous faisions l'intégration, si tous les Arabes et les Berbères d'Algérie étaient considérés comme Français, comment les empêcherait-on de venir s'installer en métropole alors que le niveau de vie y est tellement plus élevé ? Mon village ne s'appellerait plus Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, mais Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées !» Which means: « It's a very good thing that there are yellow French people, black French people and brown French people. It's a sign that France is open to all races and that it has a universal vocation. But on condition they stay a minority. If not, France wouldn't be France anymore. After all, we are an European people from white race, Greek and Latin culture, and Christian religion. Try to mix oil and vinegar together. Shake the bottle. After a while, they get separated again. The Arabs are the Arabs, the French are the French. Do you believe that the French nation is able to integrate ten million Muslims who shall be twenty million tomorrow and forty million the day after? If we integrated them, if all the Arabs and Berbers were considered French, how could we prevent them from moving to our home country where the standard of living is so much higher? My village wouldn't be named Colombey-les-Deux-Églises (Colombey of the Two Churches) anymore, but Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées (Colombey of the Two Mosques)!" What do you think? Should it be inserted?

To prove what ? That de Gaulle believed in independant nations and not in colonization nor in a federation of nations ? OK 40 or 50 years later it may sound like Le Pen, but the context was radically different. Ericd 15:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like De Gaulle was predicting the theory of Eurabia. Of course, Bat Ye'or says it was his fault to begin with. --ProhibitOnions 21:33, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

"He was also targeted by the settler OAS terrorist group and several assassinations attempts were made on him; the most famous is that of 22 August 1962, when he and his wife narrowly escaped an assassination attempt when their Citroën DS was targeted by machine gun fire arranged by Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry at the Petit-Clamart." But do you conciencize that is "Conspiration theory" So it can be only fabrication by same sort of neurotic insane patient! if bomb exploded precisely where and when De Gaulle passed by that can be explained by natural causes for sure, only one has to look for them. No even not need that: for conspiration theory by evidence cannot be tru, thet don't right to be true. Why look for a Bastien Thiery, next time you appeal to martians One must suppose, it is naturally the same stuff : all conspiration constructed schemes of insane spirits How can you write that there is a conspiration to kill him?!!! it's all communist-terrorist propaganda you did'nt know?? And even if he woulbe shot it would be an illusion and a lunacy that the bullet introduced by pure natural hazard in his head could be the result of a - god forbid that unnatural verboten word!! - a conspiration !

Euh... I don't understand ? Ericd 13:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Me neither... --ProhibitOnions 21:33, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Moved sections to new pages

Since no one else had done it, I moved the Names and terms of address used for Charles De Gaulle and Things named after Charles de Gaulle sections to their own pages. Please improve them. --ProhibitOnions 22:25, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

It looks like the article of oversized, due to the lists at the end of the article. They need to moved somewhere too.--Commander Keane 17:08, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Somebody please move photograph of de Gaulle!

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just wondering whether somebody could move (I don't know how since I'm new to Wikipedia) the photograph of de Gaulle standing in front of his books to the top of the article to replace the drawing? I think this would look much better and more appropriate.

Thank you whoever moved the picture - looks great now!

De Gaulle is much more than just the first president of the Fifth Republic. Above all he is remembered in France as the leader of Free France during the Second World War. The presidential portrait is appropriate to the Fifth Republic section. For the top of the article, a more neutral portrait should be used. Hardouin 00:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

First Lady

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

First Lady is a pretty American term (in the main table). Would it not be better to put something more European, like maybe just Spouse? DJ Clayworth 19:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right even if "Première dame de France" is sometimes used. Ericd 20:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Assassination attempts?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So, reading the BBC they mentioned the OAS? or something like that, tried to assassinate Charles several times. Is this so & how can it be mentioned appropriately in this article? --Duemellon 12:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A Review of the integrity of the de Gaulle Article and Wikipedia in General

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The Internet has made available unprecedented amounts of information for anyone to digest and further has enabled just about anyone to author and publish articles on an infinite number of topics. The benefits of this democratic information revolution are hardly quantifiable, but the freedom that the Internet affords also creates new reason for caution. We see this quite clearly in many personal websites with clear biases or inaccuracies, but with regard to the recent popularity of Wikipedia.org, can we truly count on it to be error- and bias-free? While the articles may indeed contain a very few errors, accuracy cannot be stated strictly in terms of the empirical integrity of the articles contents. Indeed, the accuracy of statements contained within an article may not betray inaccuracies generated by omission of context or the inclusion of distracting or unneeded information. It is with this question of the nature of so-called reliable information in mind that we approach an article about Charles de Gaulle, an undeniably important figure in the 20th century history of France. In reading about Charles de Gaulle’s influence on the France in the 20th century, one discerns a particular reverence toward him as a leader, especially when addressing his service in the Free French Forces as well his role in the founding of the Fifth republic. With statements like, “[a]s a junior member of the French government, he opposed unsuccessfully proposals to surrender.” He seems to be portrayed as a lone brave Frenchmen, but the article fails to provide us with the necessary context to verify this. Was he in the minority? Why were his desires suppressed? Who was it that ultimately suppressed his views? While a great many sources may or may not addresses these questions, with Wikipedia’s vast number of seemingly arbitrary links to reference articles, perhaps the author might link to articles that do in fact answer various questions about the context, in this case, of de Gaulle’s opposition to the surrender of French forces. While I would hesitate to call reverence for de Gaulle’s achievements a very significant bias, it is with a certain amount of bias that every author approaches his or her topic of choice. The effects of this bias are mitigated in the professional and academic world through editorial and peer review controls, but the volunteer nature of Wikipedia may prevent the bias of the author from being minimized. One such example of this bias is an apparent glossing over of details that might mar the hero-like image painted of de Gaulle in the beginning of the article. With one short sentence, " De Gaulles government covered up the Paris massacre of 1961” [sic], the author mentions this embarrassing episode with no mention of how or why they decided to cover up the event. While I don’t know that this was intentional, it does indeed raise important questions for one not familiar with the recent history of France. Was this a truly important event being downplayed or was this a minor event that has been included for thoroughness? Despite the article’s reverent nature, I feel it does provide a good overview of the life of Charles de Gaulle. This overview status puts Wikipedia in a very interesting position in defining its identity. Wikipedia’s articles seem to range from attempting to provide a cursory overview, with several links to references or more focused articles, to an attempt at providing a comprehensive source of information, with only links to other Wikipedia articles (perhaps the Internet equivalent of a scholarly article only referencing scholarly articles?). This identity crisis, leads one to be insecure about a great deal of what is read on the website. If an article is too short, one might question the importance of what the article is about. If the article is too long, one might question the validity of it’s contents (“How could volunteers/hobbyists know so much about this topic?”). The author(s) attempt to answer these questions in their citations, but I feel that this is where Wikipedia truly fails. The adherence to online-only citations leaves a 1000-word article with only a few citations of popular news sites, one online “Charles de Gaulle database”, and innumerable links to other Wikipedia or wiki-based websites. This reliance on free on-line resource fails to truly solve the problem of pseudo-expertise of volunteers/hobbyists. I believe the credence given to Wikipedia, if not in the popular world, certainly in the scholarly world would be greatly increased were they to begin citing scholarly books and articles, even if they were not freely (as in cost) available. Despite the issue of sometimes-questionable reliability, if we leave Wikipedia in its place of an overview resource, I believe it can serve as a wonderful starting point for research on any number of topics. The nature of the Internet and the spirit of volunteerism are wonderful things, but I believe the integrity of articles on Wikipedia should be at least questioned before being accepted. The article on de Gaulle serves as a fine example of the cooperative authorship that Wikipedia can accomplish—that of delivering a thorough overview of a person or issue, but it seems that every section of the article leaves the reader with questions about the implication, context, or motivations of an event or time-period. These questions in the future may be answered on Wikipedia, but for now, the best source of answers to such questions is normally an academic article.

How can people take the time to write so much questions on the talk page instead of improving the article ?

BTW : see http://fr.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563271/Gaulle_Charles_de.html Ericd 20:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

“[a]s a junior member of the French government, he opposed unsuccessfully proposals to surrender.” He seems to be portrayed as a lone brave Frenchmen, but the article fails to provide us with the necessary context to verify this. Was he in the minority?

Well he was alone except some support by Paul Reynaud. Read ahead "with 100,000 gold francs from the secret funds given to him the previous night by Paul Reynaud".

Why were his desires suppressed ?

As stated in the article he was provisional brigadier general (translation : he was peanuts).

Soviet Marshall

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Added Soviet Marshall "Mikhail Nikolayevich Tukhachevsky" as fellow repeat incorrigible escapee. Article on the Marshall mentions de Gaulle, so symmetry is served.Will314159 11:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"He made five unsuccessful escape attempts, and was put in solitary confinement in the Ingolstadt fortress, a retaliation camp, where he met another incorrigible - the then lieutenant Mikhail Tukhachevsky.

When the war ended, he remained in the military, serving on the staff of Gen. Maxime Weygand and then Gen. Philippe Pétain. During the Polish-Soviet war in 1919/20, he volunteered to be a member of the French Military Mission to Poland and was an infantry instructor with the Polish army. He distinguished himself in fighting near the river Zbrucz and received the highest Polish military award, Virtuti Militari."

Added the part about "Ingolstadt fortress. General Tukhachevsky was the Russian Commander during the Polish-Soviet War so there is a nice symmetry there.--65.184.213.36 02:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Will314159

re: Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

re: [[Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR]]

"Only a handful of thinkers, ranging from Charles de Gaulle to the Soviet dissident Andrei Amalrik, foretold the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union itself, and even they saw it as likely to happen as a result of disastrous wars with China or pressures from the Muslim Soviet states of Central Asia." From:[4]

Signed:Travb 10:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

For French Wikipédians

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Bon voilà bien bravo... La communauté française de Wikipedia s'en est bien sorti. L'article donne une bonne idée de pourquoi de Gaulle est important pour les Français. On s'est bien battu contre une forme de diabolisation par les Anglo-saxons... genre de Gaulle était anglophobe depuis le début et attendait son heure pour niquer les Anglais. Et après ? Comment on se débrouille avec la barbouzerie et le SAC ? Ericd 23:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

De minimis non curat praetor. Hektor 09:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sous De Gaulle, le SAC est fort loin de ce qu'il deviendra, d'une part. D'autre part, et dans la mesure où on ne peut pas dire qu'on puisse s'appuyer sur des faits avérés propre à relancer le bordel, je vois pas l'intérêt d'en parler. La dérive dans l'usage de l'article 16, la dérive plébiscitaire et j'en passe me semblent plus à même de nuancer le trait sans le caricaturer, si c'est ce que vous vouliez faire.

Picture

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Such a person should have a picture, like other military leaders and presidents have.

Fully agree. That's very odd this way. Hektor 05:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The picture was deleted by an anonymous vandal on July 18. I've recovered it. Hardouin 18:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is sometimes the most obvious forms of vandalism that are the most difficult to detect. Thanks. Hektor 16:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of title?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

What does "1946–1958: The desert crossing" mean? What desert is being crossed? Clarityfiend 19:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That’s how this period of his life was called, "la traversée du désert". It’s a metaphor for his isolation during these years, between his times as "the Liberator of France" and "the Saviour of the Republic". I think the phrase was also used to describe the Exodus, but I don’t know who first applied it to De Gaulle. 81.249.7.56 (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion -- for English speakers, you might consider "in the wilderness" or "the wilderness years" as a substitute for "the desert crossing," which to this native English speaker implies an actual trip across a desert. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What is mean "destitute"?

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"Unlike many other politicians, he died nearly destitute, and his family had to sell the Boisserie residence."

How can the president of france and "he was the leader of the Free French" be a poor man? I wonder how much france pay for there presidents? here in the east where I live, our leaders own mostly all the country (also own the people life).

Because he had his own view of the job, as president you serve your country you don't earn money on it. He did paid his own private spending (understand the ones which didn't depend of his job). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.206.57.205 (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It may seem amazing, but there have been heads of government who did not enrich themselves; that is, steal money from the people. James Callaghan, Prime Minister of the UK, was being driven in central London when he saw his predecessor as Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, waiting at a bus stop. Wilson was in the early stages of dementia. Mr Callaghan determined that no former Prime Minister should be so humiliated, and decreed that all future Prime Ministers would have a government car and driver for life. Mr Callaghan was known as 'Gentleman Jim'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballenstedter (talk • contribs) 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Few heads of government in the western world "steal money" like African dictators. It was actually Thatcher in the 1980s who increased the pension for former Prime Ministers so that Wilson would not be left hard up; because of his dementia Wilson was not able to earn money from directorships like former ministers usually do. De Gaulle didn't either - joining the board of a company would have been beneath his dignity - so that just left his colonel's pension; whether he had royalties from his books or whether he donated the money to charity, I couldn't say.Paulturtle (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

1958-1959: Minister of National defense?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I do not think de Gaulle has been Minister of National defense during 1958-1959. He was the president of the council (kind of a prime minister) and has been elected President in december 1958, but I don't see how he could have been prime minister and minister of national defense at the same time.

Receswind 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not impossible Raymond Barre was Premier ministre - Ministre des finances. Ericd 15:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In the 4th Republics, the President of the Council occasionally also held a ministry. For example, Mendès-France was prime minister and minister of foreign affairs; Pinay was Minister of Finance while he was prime minister, Queuille was Interior Minister in his first tenure, and Finance minister in his third, and Schuman was briefly his own foreign minister in his week long second ministry. During the 3rd Republic this kind of thing was de rigueur. It seems to have been much rarer in the 4th, but still to have occasionally happened. john k 00:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

President of France Infobox

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

In the info box, De Gaulle is listed as President 1959-69. If this were an infobox for the Fifth Republic Presidents, this tenure would be correct. However this infobox is for President of France (all republics), thus De Gaulle should be listed as serving 1958-69. I'll make the corrections. GoodDay 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I stand corrected. De Gaulle's predecessor was President until 1959. GoodDay 22:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic Remarks

Latest comment: 14 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

Considering his legacy is highly controversial, should something not be mentioned about how he called Jews "an elite people, self-assured and domineering". Source: "France, Israel and Islam". The Economist, Jan 25th 2007 Canking 00:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

His legacy is highly controversial says who? In France his legacy is not controversial at all. He is much admired, and even his former opponents such as the Socialists recognize that he was a major statesman. In the English speaking world he may be viewed in a more contrasted light, but then the English speaking world is not the whole World mind you. In Latin America, Germany, China, the former French colonies, and many other places, he's seen as a great man, and he's not very controversial. Re-reading the article, I realize the tone is extremely critical, reflecting old Anglo-American grudges. This article will need to be NPOVed if it wants to be taken seriously. Anyone volunteering? Godefroy 20:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Economist is well known for its anti-French bigotry, and should not be used as a source for anything regarding France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.154.3 (talk • contribs)

Well known by who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.108.206.176 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A great man is not "great" simply because he is incredibly popular. Furthermore, I am not arguing whether or not he was a major statesman. De Gaulle, while admired by many in Quebec is also hated by others apart general negative sentiment across the rest of Canada. De Gaulle's comment about Jews can easily be found elsewhere on the internet so whether it was reported by The Economist or by another source, the question is; did he say it? Since it seems that he did, and unless it can be shown that this comment was meant in jest or just taken out of contest, it is only reasonable to include it in the article and let readers make their own interpretation. Canking 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"unless it can be shown that this comment was meant in jest or just taken out of contest" the burden of proof is on you, then, mouthy idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.154.3 (talk • contribs)

I kindly ask you to remove the latter part of your comment as Wikipedia strictly forbids personal attacks (top of the page). Furthermore, I can source where I found that comment (while the Economist is disliked by some, it is a respected source and credible). As I said, multiple other websites claim he said this as well. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to show he didn't in fact make that comment or it was taken out of context. I remind you to kindly take a neutral point of view. If you cannot find proof of the contrary and still wish for it not to be placed in the article, I am happy to take this matter to an open panel discussion to guage whether it meets wikipedia's quality standards. Canking 13:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is anti-semitic in saying that the Jews are an elite people, by the way ? I'd understand if it was about saying that they are sub-humans, but here I am at a loss. Rama 13:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

True. Godefroy 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's what it means when you combine it with the word "domineering". According to dictionary.com, domineering means "inclined to rule arbitrarily or despotically; overbearing; tyrannica" with synonyms "arrogant; despotic, oppressive". On it's own, elite does not necessarily carry a negative connotation but when combined with domineering, it is clearly not a positive remark Canking 01:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

De Gaulle said "peuple d'élite, sûr de lui-même et dominateur". In French. Don't try to interpretate subtle connotations of the English translation, it is irrelevant. Rama 08:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing with a native french speaker (I also speak french), dominateur is a clear negative association in French as well. Furthermore, in De Gaulle's same discourse, he says right afterwards "...ambition ardente et conquéran..." when referring to the Jewish people. Wikepedia in French even mentions some questionable remarks that he's made in regards to antisemitism. Therefore, not only is their no sufficient connotation change from French to English but their is further evidence in the same speech etc of a negative opinion.

There is a lot of animosity towards this fact being included in the article. I am largely attributing this to him being viewed as a French icon. However, this article is about painting the individual as how he actually was rather than confirming how France would like to see him. Canking 01:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement is ambiguous. Both "dominateur", and "ambition ardente et conquérante" can be understood as either negative or positive remarks. Being ambitious is not in itself negatively connotated, and De Gaulle said nothing more at this point. The intend was probably negative, if you take the political context into account, but the formulation is very subtle and is not in itself clearly negative.

The remark was made in a precise political context; it remains to be proven that a general, irrational hatred of Jewish people, culture or religion motivated the remark, rather than the political context. And doing so would clearly be original research Rama 08:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying De Gaulle is antisemetic is clearly ridiculous. When Free France took back Algeria from Vichy, the vichyst bureaucrats who stayed in place didn't abrogate the antisemetic laws. When De Gaulle arrived in Algiers and saw this he got extremely furious and abrogated those laws. Admit it would be a weird behaviour for an antisemetic person. To be frank there is strictly no serious basis to say De Gaulle was antisemetic. His family was even openly and strongly dreyfusard. Med 09:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

While I am not convinced, nor do I agree with some of the aforementioned comments, I am willing to retract my suggestion that anti-semitic/racist remarks be included in the article since I am not an expert on De Gaulle. While certain credible sources have mentioned his impartiality (such as The Economist), I feel that somebody with more knowledge of De Gaulle would be more appropriate to argue in favour of their inclusion should that be the case. Separately, I am slightly worried at the impartiality in which this article is being written as it seems to me to have a bias consisting largely of selectively positive comments. There are times when De Gaulle's lack of stated preferences say more than the contrary. For example, De Gaulle advocated for a "Free Quebec" and validated this claim through rhetoric about the "wonders of having this colony of Frenchman along the St.Lawrence river" in a speech he gave shortly after returning to France. This could easily be viewed as an ethnic judgment and it wouldn't be improper for somebody to wonder if that was the case. It is this sort of thing that I was advocating for in the article and to have individuals make up their own mind because there are clearly two ways of viewing this. I feel that not including these remarks can possibly do Wikipedia and the readers an injustice because they are not fairly representing De Gaulle for who he was. They need not be so controversial, simply stated. Canking 15:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As you say very well, doing so would be speculation. Wikipedia does not wonder. Rama 20:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Then isn't that the problem? Wikipedia taking the position of the select few who contribute. Wikipedia taking a position when it's not supposed to. So much for attempted objectivity Canking 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A newspaper - even The Economist... - should not to be taken as a impartial source for historical research. It is simply not his role and the journalists are very aware that they are writing about today France when they quote de Gaulle. De Gaulle was obviously not anti-semitic. His closest advisers and the best where Jews, like René Cassin (later promotor of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) or Michel Debré (writer of the 5th Republic Constitution). But it is true that he grew up in a right wing national sensibility who included some solid anti-semitic clichés on Jewish plots (spread by Déroulède or Maurras). Anyhow, de Gaulle had been so constantly accused during WW2 to serve the interest of the Jews that it is funny to hear on the opposite that he might have been anti-semitic. In fact, the question of his attitude toward Jews concern rather Israel. It is a sical and political question more than a racial one. Being a "open nationalist", de Gaulle himself was naturally well disposed toward all great national enterprises and had been truly impressed by David Ben Gourion's action and the immense effort of settlements in Palestine. But the realist part of de Gaulle's politics, always very calculated, made him also think that the settlement of the Jews in an hostile region (to be compared in his mind with former French colonies), will mean permanent troubles, and he was worry to see that Israel whas not ready to do more concession in order to live in peace. He was certainly not familiar with the Jewish history, culture and mentality. Moreover, he didn't speak for the Jews or Israelis, but for himself or for his country. The famous sentence "peuple d'élite, sûr de lui-même et dominateur" is not only an opinion, it is a political statement and should be analysed as one. Never forget who speaks, when, and where when you consider history. The important fact to understand in 1967 is that from this moment, France (who has strong links whith the Middle east, and de Gaulle used to be posted as a French officer in Lebanon before WW2) will reckon with the Arab side. Which doesn't mean that it will be against Israel, but rather that it won't be aligned on America's foreign policy (think that in 1966 de Gaulle dediced to pull France out of NATO). Besides all of this, let me say that the meaning of the word "dominateur" should not be only understood following a dictionnary or the personal mind of the common speaker - it should be heard from de Gaulle's point of view. And I don't think that for this very person, General in the French army, educated before WW1 in a time when fascination for strenght and power was at its peak, later regulary accused to install a dictatorship in France, and who visited Franco after his retirement in 1969, I do not think that the term was so negative in his mind. I know that de Gaulle's 1967 statement has shocked a lot of people, among who Jews. But it doesn't make de Gaulle an anti-semitic, though clearly, that is true, a non politically correct statesman ! But he though he could say that kind of things because of all he has done against fascism during the war. For further readings see : De Gaulle en son siècle vol. 1 : " De Gaulle vu par les Juifs" pp.458-470 De Gaulle en son siècle vol. 6 : "De Gaulle et le conflit du Proche-Orient" pp. 394-455 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.61.129 (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Photograph

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

User:Godefroy, the image Image:DeGaulle.jpg you keep reverting to is mediocre, non-Free, and it clearly is an army uniform (which invalidates your comment [5] -- and De Gaulle wore his uniform when he was president as well, so I don't know what you're getting at anyway).

Furthermore it is very probable that this image is simply a copyright violation, since we have numerous other photographs, which invalidates the arguments that the image cannot be replaced, which is necessary to invoke fair use. Please stop the nonsense. Rama 21:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture is indeed in a military uniform, but it is taken in a way that no military insignia or cap is apparent, which means that people who are not expert in military things (the majority of people) can't tell he's wearing a military uniform. So stop with the nitpicking please. Also, during his presidency de Gaulle wore almost only civilian clothes. He wore his old military uniform only in some very particular situations, such as when he denounced the military coup in Algiers, or when he toured South America where he thought he would be more recognizable with his military outfit. Those were very rare instances. So again no nitpicking please. The truth is, in the life of de Gaulle there's the military period, and there's the civilian period. I don't think a military picture is appropriate on top of the article, because it reduces de Gaulle only to his military period which is just the first half of his public life. It's a bit as if we had a picture of Eisenhower in military uniform at the beginning of the Eisenhower article. I put this neutral picture on purpose, because it is neither a picture in military regalia, nor a picture taken during his civilian presidency when he was much older. The picture is a bit timeless to be honest. Godefroy 22:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your sensitivity is, it does not justify violation of copyright. There are plenty of legal images at Commons:Category:Charles de Gaulle and Commons:Charles de Gaulle. They give both an opportunity and a duty not to use bogus "fair use" claims. Rama 22:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you could use a bit of good faith. There are not "plenty" of de Gaulle images in the Commons. There are not that many actually, and almost all of them are in military uniform. The only civilian picture Image:Degaulle a.jpg that I could find in the Commons is the one I put on the right. Godefroy 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And the copyright of this very image is dubious (it is cropped from Image:Degaulle kennedy.jpg, which lacks sources).

But you are deluded if you think that we place your personal ideas about military uniforms above legality.

Besides, you might be well inspired to soften your tone. I only said that we had a profusion of images of De Gaulle, I said nothing about the clothes he wears on them; you will note that Fair Use laws also say little about fashion. Rama 22:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The De Gaulle/Kennedy picture appears to be a US government picture, and thus in the public domain. john k 21:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt. On the pic we can see a Republican guard holding a saber. This mean it was taken in France, most probably at the Élysée therefore the probability it is a US government pic is not that high. This needs to be seriously proven. Med 23:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The US Government cannot take pictures in France? At any rate, the picture is available, and there's no reason for this article not to use it until and unless it is deleted. The place to argue for deletion of that picture is not here, but over at commons. john k 19:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me where i said they cannot. Med 19:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You did not, I was exaggerating. My assumption was that we are to assume the good faith of contributors, however, and whoever uplodaed the pic says it's US government. There's no especial reason to believe otherwise. If someone comes along and claims the copyright, the picture will obviously be removed, but the chances of anyone claiming copyright for a rather unremarkable 45 year old photograph seems rather low, in any event. Even given that, as I said before, the issue should be dealt with at the level of the image. So long as the image itself is on wikipedia, and tagged as public domain, there's no reason not to use it. If that changes, then so be it, but why not cross that bridge when we come to it? john k 23:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(out of Indent Hell) Here's a photo of de Gaulle with President Eisenhower. The caption on the site: "On 24 April 1960. President de Gaulle is greeting Eisenhower's Naval Aide, Captain Evan P. Aurand, USN. The helicopter behind them is a Sikorski HUS-1 (UH-34)." A further note states "Official U.S. Navy Photograph, from the collections of the Naval Historical Center." As an official Navy document, the photo does not have a copyright and could be used. Note that de Gaulle is in civilian clothing. No location is given, but the image on the helicopter -- a sword and the Washington Monument -- is the shield of the Military District of Washington, D.C.; this is almost certainly in Washington during de Gaulle's visit to North America. –— OtherDave 17:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Recent deletions of two short sentences explaining a bit Gaullism or of de Gaulle's role as head of the GPRF is not acceptable. The page is far from being too long. In the same way, if one wants to claim again & again that "the 4th Republic was plagued by parliamentary instability", one might as well try to balance just a little bit this Gaullist assertion by pointing out some things that the 4th Republic did manage to do. Such discussions are inevitable when we are dealing with de Gaulle, a man who spanned the history of France, crossed four different regimes and was instrumental in the passage on one to the other. Rewriting it is acceptable, but not massive deletion. Thanks Tazmaniacs 00:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Taz for enlightening us what is acceptable and what isn’t on Wikipedia, wouldn’t want anyone thinking for themselves. Since you made quite a few additions to the article, I will begin with the one on the Setif massacre; you write that de Gaulle ordered it. Have you any reliable source that supports that accusation? From what I have read only the local authorities was involved with the decision to suppress the demonstrations. Carl Logan 09:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing remotely Irish about De Gaulle ( and I for one am heartily sick of you sad self-obsessed creatures making outrageously spurious claims on great people in the world; deriving from your massive inferiority complex, which in turn derives from the fact that up until 100 years ago, your cultural output was practically zilch -- so, cut it out, you sad gits !!!). The name De Gaulle comes from the Scottish name MacDougal/Dougal. Scots have had ties with their beloved France for hundreds of years; indeed France is the only country in the world that the Scots have any real affection for. You Irish have next to no ties with this great country, which is why the latter has made so few references to you in her history -- you are of no consequence and never have been; which is why, unlike Scotland, you have no great historical figures, no regalia, no church of your own, no laws you didn't get from England, have had no influence in world civilisation, and are famous for nothing but being Irish (the most mongrelised race in the British Isles); though you have been good at thieving Scottish culture and passing it off as your own. Why don't you read De Gaulle's speech delivered in Edinburgh in June 1942; that should leave you in no doubt which 'Celtic' race he and his compatriots value and esteem above any other. (And by the way,the 700th anniversary of The Auld Alliance was celebrated by both countries in 1995!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.179.252 (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

blind view

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

it lacks several major points in "Fourth nuclear power" section. like the crisis of 1956 when Khrushchev threatened to lanch a nuclear attack on paris and london. the settlement of the suez crisis strenghtened de gaulle's will for a nuclear deterrent but it wasn not degaulle who launched the french nuclear programme but Mollet back in 1954 (indochina war). actually it was the attitude of the western "allies" (uk left the battlefield w/o warning france and israel because of the us economic pressure on eden) during suez. so it wasn't grandeur was surely an essential motive in these nuclear developments but more the smallness of the so-called "allies" back in 1956 that demonstrated fance could not rely on allies anymore. Paris By Night 10:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Destitute?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article states:

Unlike many other politicians, he died nearly destitute. When he retired, he did not accept pensions to which he was entitled as a retired president and as a retired general. Instead, he only accepted a pension to which colonels are entitled.

By Wikipedia's own definition (here) as well as those of several dictionaries (here, here, and here), destitute is an extreme state of poverty in which the affected person has no money, resources, shelter, source of income, sustenance, etc. While Charles may have been poor at the time of his death, he was certainly not "nearly destitute."

Any opposition to a change here?

Lefteh 17:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Union with Britain

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

We currently have, "While serving as a liaison with the British government, de Gaulle proposed a political union between France and the U.K. with British leader Winston Churchill on June 16." Surely it was Churchill who proposed this union ... (?) Mikeo1938 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked in "The Fringes of Power" by John Colville and he says the idea originally came from Pleven (this must be René Pleven) and C D G was one of 'its most ardent supporters'. Mikeo1938 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Photograph of Carlton House Gardens

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Is there someone in London who could take some pix of 3-4 Carlton House Gardens, the HQ of the Free French? There is, I believe, a statue outside the house and also a blue plaque. It would be useful to have it uploaded to Wikipedia Commons; as far as I can see, there is no such image available. Pse advise here or via my Talk Page. Mikeo1938 (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Image of blue plaque uploaded. It's hard to get a good shot of the building itself.Mikeo1938 (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Independence of Guinea

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the section about the collapse of the 4th Republic, we read:

"All African colonies voted for the new constitution and the replacement of the French Union by the French Community, except Guinea, which thus became the first French African colony to gain independence, at the cost of the immediate ending of all French assistance."

Although it's not appropriate for the article itself, I was once told by a Frenchman that when Guinea rejected the French offer and opted for independence, CDG was so incensed he ordered that equipment which was not to be repatriated to France (typewriters, office supplies etc) were to be taken out to sea and dumped! Mikeo1938 (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nag banner about lack of citations

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

First of all, let me say that I’m not a Wikipedia administrator.

However, I do find it a pity to see a nag banner (dating back to 2006) about a lack of citations at the head of an article about an important figure. And it’s true that there are great swathes of text … even whole sections … without a single citation; yet other articles about contemporary statesmen are well cited and do not carry such a banner.

There is a mass of excellent material in the article, which has many regular and knowledgeable contributors. Is there someone with a biography of CDG who could help by checking some of the facts and providing citations so that this embarrassing banner can be removed?

I will continue trying to add citations but do not have a biography.Mikeo1938 (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Et maintenant … (?)

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since October, when the comment, “Nag banner about lack of citations”, was written, the article on CDG has undergone an overhaul. There are now 102 footnote references where there had previously been only 16.

Work is on-going but can the banner about a lack of citations now be withdrawn? How does one go about making such a request? Mikeo1938 (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Banner removed

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The banner about a lack of citations has now been removed; there is just one "citation needed" note remaining - this in the section entitled "Second Round".

Can we pse ensure that nothing more is added to this article without adequate in-line citations? Mikeo1938 (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments regarding refugees

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia is the source of the WP:OR claim that Charles De Gaulle said UN resolution 242 refers to both Jewish and Arab refugees in his press conference on 27 November 1967 [6] and in a 9 January 1968 letter to David Ben Gurion.[7] In fact, neither the press conference nor the letter contained any mention of Jewish refugees at all. harlan (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the first link which you give refers only to the matter of the UK's entry into the Common Market. He spoke about other matters during that px conference. I've found another link (French) at [[8]]. I cannot find anything specific there about both sets of refugees. The letter to Ben Gurion does not come up in full via the other link which you give. It would be interesting to read this letter ... do you know where else it can be read? Mikeo1938 (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There's reference to the exchange of letters between CdG and BG in the Times of 10 Jan, 1968. Again nothing specific about both sets of refugees.Mikeo1938 (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The letter is available for a small fee at the Nytimes link provided. It mentions "The pitiful condition of the Arabs who sought refuge in Jordan or were relegated to Gaza.", but there is no specific reference to Jewish refugees. harlan (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Death Sentence

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://www.gaullisme.fr/54cdg_condamne_mort.htm Don't you guys think it is worth a mention? 221.246.247.240 (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We already have: "On 4 July 1940, a court-martial in Toulouse sentenced de Gaulle in absentia to four years in prison. At a second court-martial on 2 August 1940 de Gaulle was condemned to death for treason against the Vichy regime."[20] The citation [20] leads to a link which confirms the verdict. Mikeo1938 (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle#Visit to Paraguay

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Does this mean that no head of state had ever visited Paraguay? Not even a Brasilian one? Or is it just about the French head of states..? Mallerd (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is weird. I don't have any reference books here right now. Can someone check this pse?Mikeo1938 (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Goodness knows why Paraguay had been singled out for a mention. In fact, it was a grand tour of all 10 republics of South America. I have amended the article accordingly. Mikeo1938 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

August 1962 Petit Clamart assassination attempt

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do we have an article about the August 1962 Petit Clamart assassination attempt? I don't see one linked in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Citations

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was castigated by a nag banner between 2006 and 2009 for insufficient in-line citations. At one point there were only 16 (!); now there are 116. It entailed much work to put matters right. Pse don’t add contentious detail without a reliable citation. Mikeo1938 (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Views of Charles de Gaulle's legacy

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Should we include something in this section from Churchill "The Gathering Storm" which praises him? Ocracoke72 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes! By all means. My copy of the Gathering Storm has no index, so I am not entirely familiar with what it saysGodwhale (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll type something up and post it here before publishing it. Ocracoke72 (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In his memoirs on World War II, Winston Churchill recounts that de Gaulle authored a "much-criticized" book on the benefits of modern, armored vehicles (253). However, Churchill later criticized the French and English for overlooking de Gaulle's analysis on the capabilities of these vehicles, including the ability to withstand enemy artillery fire and move significant distances quickly (425).

Ocracoke72 (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

last paragraph of the EEC section needs rewriting

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The last paragraph of the EEC section of the article is an injection of extreme POV into an otherwise very well written and neutral article. The wording is particularly terrible. Use of the passive voice, terrible prose like "quite staggering", unsourced claims, weasel words. It also suffers from currentism -- at the very least it needs to be rewritten so that it's clear what words like "still" mean. I've tagged a few of the more egregious bits but basically I think we should probably either rewrite it completely or delete it. I've tagged it as violating NPOV. Eniagrom (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You are perhaps right; I have removed this papragraph. By the way, what's POV? Godwhale (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I suggest this be nominated for Good Article or Featured Article Status. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. The "Views on De Gaulle's Legacy" section is a disgrace, and basically includes nothing but negative commentary. Now I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of opinions about one of the great statesmen of the 20th century includes nothing but negativity from Anglophones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.205.49 (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Charles de Gaulle statue in Moscow-1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An image used in this article, File:Charles de Gaulle statue in Moscow-1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wunderschoen !

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A francophobic masterpiece ! However, for simplicity, and to remain true to our anglosaxon reptilian philosophy, I suggest replacing the page by a mere: "He was yet another prick from France". That for sure, all anglosaxons will understand without having to rack their mushy brains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.30.143 (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This accusation has been made plenty of times before; I respectfully suggest you scroll back and read the 'Neutrality' section from May 2005 which discusses it rather well IMO. As for Anglo-Saxon prejudice, there is no denying de Gaulle was sometimes unpopular in the US and America - to say otherwise would be absurd, but then Stalin also found him difficult and unrealistic about France's world influence. A number of contributors including myself have gone to great lengths to try to explain why he is remembered so very differently in France than in the wider world and I do not believe the article portrays him in the way you describe at all. I personally sought out references to his positive attributes, for example his undeniable valour in the face of personal danger, his foresight in predicting future developments in politics and warfare and his ability to provide the tough leadership his country needed at the time. At the end of the day, this is the English Wikipedia.--Godwhale (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

″At the end of the day, this is the English Wikipedia″. Meaning what exactly? That neutrality is linguistically dependent – which is clearly false since most events can be described neutrally in any language – or is this an admission to cultural bias, which seriously undermines Wikipedia's claim to neutrality?

File:DeGaulleGrandPalais.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An image used in this article, File:DeGaulleGrandPalais.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:DeGaulleGrandPalais.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Exile Homes in England - Newspaper Citation

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have added further detail about his exile homes, cited to a Shropshire newspaper's secondary story to its main front page report on his death in 1970, headlined 'The year of exile in Salop'. French users and readers, please note, 'Salop' is a colloquial (non-obscene) and abbreviated term for Shropshire's county name.Cloptonson (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Weirdly-written article

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Very strange that this article is so long, yet has so few citations and is full of unsourced quotes, random bits of tabloidy gossip, and some flat-out inaccuracies. I'm going to go ahead and try and improve it (at a very slow pace I imagine). LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

POV bollocks

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As noted above, this article is widely written with spurious remarks throughout. My particular umbrage is with this rubbish:

"When war finally broke out in late July 1914, the 33rd Regiment, considered one of the best fighting units in France was immediately thrown into checking the German advance at Dinant. However, the traditionally minded French Fifth Army commander, General Charles Lanrezac threw his units into pointless bayonet charges with bugles and full colours flying against the German artillery, incurring heavy losses."

That is utter bullshit. Lanrezac actually saved the French Army from certain envelopment and annihilation in August 1914 by pulling back despite the incompetence of General Joseph Joffre who wanted to stick with Plan XVII come hell or high water. If Lanrezac had not implemented a strategic withdrawal from Charleroi, the German Schlieffen plan would have been successful because German shock troops were only 40 miles from Paris. (see also Joseph Gallieni)

Expressions like "the traditionally minded French Fifth Army commander" is just the same old crap that Joffre used when he had Lanrezac removed from command shortly before the First Battle of the Marne in September. Cynically Joffre later took complete credit for saving Paris and the French Army because the general who actually ordered the retreat was gone.

The statement "pointless bayonet charges with bugles and full colours flying against the German artillery, incurring heavy losses" is both unqualified and a serious distortion of the known facts. If this article is anything but a collection of POV statements, errors like this need to be corrected. But I fear this is par for the course on here. 86.184.57.64 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The war may have "finally broken out in late July" 1914 with regard to some of the European powers but there was no military action on France's part until a mobilisation against Germany was ordered on 1st August. Next day Germany declared war on France and the day after that demanded to enter Belgium. The opening phrase ought to be rephrased to reflect the chronology.Cloptonson (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have rephrased the sentence to begin thus: "When war finally broke out on France in early August 1914..."Cloptonson (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Average soldier?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The section Charles_de_Gaulle#Officer_cadet states that he "was an average soldier. He was promoted to corporal after six months, then to sergeant." There seems to be a condradiction there. As far as I know, promotions of that speed were typical(?) on the field of combat, and then only as "acting". As I have no idea whatsoever about the subject, I won't do it myself but maybe it would be better to remove that bit about "average"... Technopat (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Those promotions were normal for an officer cadet doing his compulsory year in the ranks: six months as a private then six months as an NCO. From memory (I read a lot of de Gaulle biogs back in the 1990s) his CO was irritated by his arrogance and initially promoted him to corporal rather than sergeant. This was a common problem throughout his career - in the early 1920s he failed an exercise to get a staff posting after rubbing up the examining general the wrong way, and had to call in a favour from Petain to get a posting to supply & logistics instead, whilst in the mid-1930s he had to pull strings with Daladier after being initially passed over for promotion to full colonel.Paulturtle (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

French contributions

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the section "early life", I don't see the need for the following sentence - except for some nationalistic "masturbation". Happy to be proved wrong.

France had made significant contributions to European culture with its Impressionist painters, the sculptures of Rodin, writers such as Émile Zola and Marcel Proust and the music of Claude Debussy, and had helped lead the way with technological advances such as with the construction of the Suez Canal and the Eiffel Tower, and in recent developments in aviation, the cinema and the motor car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.201.19.41 (talk • contribs)

Indeed, it's absurd. We don't list the cultural achievements of Germany to somehow explain the nationalism of Hitler, or the achievements of Britain to explain Churchill. He was a patriot, that's all that's necessary to say. If one wants to look up the greatest hits of French national culture, that should be detailed elsewhere. Paul B (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Vers l’Armée de Métier" read aloud to Hitler?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The citation for this links the template page of TIME Magazine's archives. I have not found any evidence of this on the internet, other than statements on blogs that likely source themselves to this Wikipedia page. Can anyone confirm? Lebanonman19 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

His biographer Lacouture believes that tales like this are exaggerated. Have amended accordingly.Paulturtle (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Early Life

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'll just quote my source:

...a member of a monarchist family and son of a man who had gone into exile rather than accept a job as a history teacher in a secular school...^[1]

^ Vinen, Richard; The Unfree French; New Haven, CT; Yale University Press; 2006; p. 59

☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

1958 crisis

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As written, the 1958 Algiers coup is described in a very confusing manner for the reader. For instance:

"A "Committee of Civil and Army Public Security" was created under the presidency of General Jacques Massu, a Gaullist sympathiser." - this tells the reader very little except for the name of the institution, without any description or context. (The necessary context being of course that Massu was supporting the settler insurrection - without this, a reader might easily interpret it as the army opposing the settlers in support of the government and security.)

"Under the pressure of Massu, Salan declared Vive de Gaulle! from the balcony of the Algiers Government-General building on 15 May." - To the layman reader, again, this means absolutely nothing - an explanation is necessary.

In general, the section reads as if it's scrupulously avoiding the use of the words 'coup', 'rebellion', 'insurrection', or 'putsch', and refers to military actions/threats in a very circumspect manner. The most you get is the passage "The crisis deepened as French paratroops from Algeria seized Corsica and a landing near Paris was discussed (Operation Resurrection)." But it's completely unclear to the amateur reader what sort of landing, why that would deepen the crisis, etc. The necessary context is that the army junta had seized power in Algiers, demanded that de Gaulle lead a national government, and planned for a military seizure of Paris. But this is only hinted at or touched upon circumspectly in the course of the article. Other articles (e.g. the 1958 May Crisis one) don't suffer from this impediment and are more readable; I understand that political realities come up with editing articles of prominent figures sometime, but still, the section is essentially unreadable as is. Would it be possible for someone more knowledgeable than me to at least add more clarification to the section, or in the worst case, remove most of the section and direct people to the (much clearer) May 1958 Crisis page instead? 140.180.250.250 (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I worked on it. Rjensen (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

US dollar crisis

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Volunteer Marek called the terms "costless dollars" and "forcing other countries to accept them" as "a bunch of POV nonsense [9]. Well, in the Bretton Wood System accepting US dollars as payment for good was mandatory for the signatories of the agreement, not optional... And costless dollars is an indirect quotation: "it costs only a few cents to produce $100, but other countries had to pony up $100 dollars of actual goods and services in order to obtain one."[10] You can disagree with the wordings, and I'm not opposed to cosmetic changes. But these are facts, not "pov-nonsense"... Blaue Max (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

First, the term "exorbitant privilege" is not de Gaulle's. Second, yes, the dollar was the cornerstone of the BW agreement. But no one forced any countries to sign that agreement. The pound had been the cornerstone of the gold standard, and after WW2 it became the dollar. The fact that printing a currency is "costless" is also strictly speaking true (ask Zimbabwe) - this is just the idea of seignorage - but this is taken out of context, misrepresented. There was absolutely nothing stopping France or any other country, from producing "costless" francs. And using these to purchase "costless" dollars. That's the nature of fiat money. Except of course inflation. "costless" is an attribute of any modern currency. "forcing other countries to accept then" is not true and POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This version is *still* POV pushing, in particular the junk about "subsidizing US living standards and multinationals". One more time, nobody forced anyone to do anything here. Just drop the editorializing and stick to the facts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a direct quotation, please read source, p.4 [11]. You have to explain why the Bretton woods System was seen as an "exorbitant privilege", otherwise it is not comprehensible to the readers. Blaue Max (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. It omits some key words and changes others."Found themselves" does not have the same meaning as "see themselves". It omits the relevant context, which is that this wasn't fact - as your edit tries to pretend - but the opinion of some individuals. You are misrepresenting sources to push a POV. Stop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is, see p.4, a more direct quotation would be plagiarism. I'm not pushing a pov, I'm explaining why it was seen as an "exorbitant privilege". I'm open to changes, but I'm waiting in vain for your sugestions... Blaue Max (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

French monarchist?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Where is the evidence that Charles de Gaulle was a French monarchist? He clearly had no intention of restoring the French monarchy under the Count of Paris or any of the other pretenders to the French throne. - (202.89.141.109 (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC))

Done: Although I read somwhere that he came from a roaylist familly, that he had approached the count of Paris but found him too stupid to be king and that he established the Fifth Repubic wich is a kind of elected monarchy. I also removed other misleading or dubious categories. Blaue Max (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Not encylcopedical"

Latest comment: 8 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

On December 29 2014 the following passage was deleted as "not encylcopedical" (sic):

"His enduring reputation in France is that he was the strongest and greatest of French leaders since Napoleon; but in the UK, he is regarded as a difficult and uncooperative man who was ungrateful for the assistance given to him during the war, who unfairly blocked the UK's entry into the EEC, and who hypocritically interfered in the internal politics of Canada."

I feel the passage should be reinstated as it is a perfectly encyclopaedic statement and is a succinct summary of De Gaulle's enduring reputation. The article should point out the British view of him as "a difficult and uncooperative man who was ungrateful for the assistance given to him during the war". (De Gaulle even refused to share military codes with the British, insecure codes which the Brits then broke anyway). He did "unfairly block the UK's entry into the EEC", and the current statement "However, he opposed any development of a supranational Europe, favouring a Europe of sovereign Nations and vetoed twice Britain's entry into the European Community" is a whitewash. Arrivisto (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your sentence violates every major policies of Wikipedia: it is unsourced, Anglo-biased, not neutral, it uses contentious words and it's probably a bunch of personnal ideas. There's not a single reason to reinstate this sentence. Blaue Max (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Blaue Max's response encourages me to reinstate the paragraph. Of course it can be sourced (and will be) as most of the points are already made in the article. It is not biased, as it compared two views, the Gallic and the "Anglo-Saxon" (to use de Gaulle's dismissive term). It is not "probably a bunch of personnal(sic) ideas"; it is an accurate and succinct summary. The fact is that while (with good reason) the French love de Gaulle, at the same time the English (with good reason) loathe him. Arrivisto (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I encourage you to read WP:NPOV and WP:WORDS before editing. Any non neutral terms such as "strongest, greatest, difficult, uncooperative, ungrateful, unfairly, hypocritically" should be removed accordingly. Second, what you're saying is wrong: de Gaulle was one of the most hated French president who escaped many assassination attempts and British historians are much more balanced than the stereotypes you perpetuate. Finally, the lead is certainly not the place to add a "British" point of view on him. Wikipedia is already too much Anglo-biased and we cannot add the German, Chinese, Algerian, etc. points of view in an already too long lead. Blaue Max (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not "perpetuating a stereotype"; I am summarising what is already in the article. Of course a British point of view should be prominent; before the war de Gaulle was just a military man who had shown more bravery against the Nazis than most, but it was the British who made him, recognising him as the leader of the Free French and giving him succour and support. Without the British, de Gaulle was nothing. But whereas Adenauer and Schumann recognised that war was the curse of Europe and that a European union was the answer, It was de Gaulle's grandiose nationalism that, through his "empty chair" policy, nearly brought the EEC to a halt. His veto of UK entry into the EEC was small-minded and not based on finer motives. His fears of "perfidious Albion's" desire to filch French colonies proved groundless. There is nothing un-encyclopaedic in the (true) statement that: "in the UK, he is regarded as a difficult and uncooperative man"; it is not a biased criticism, it is statement of fact.

Wikipedia is not a forum: the purpose of the talk page is not to allow you to express you personal opinions on the subject, but to improve the encyclopedic content of the articles, and your blatantly biased sentence is not contributing to it. Blaue Max (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement "Wikipedia is already too much Anglo-biased" could have come from the General's very own lips! Arrivisto (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not me nor the general who says that, but Wikipedia itself. Blaue Max (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is too long, and should be reduced to a summary. Arrivisto (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the lead is too long - it is appropriate to the length of a very long article, on which somebody has obviously done a lot of work but which should perhaps one day be split up, e.g into separate articles for his military/WW2 and postwar careers. But for the time being the lead is an appropriate overview for the general reader.Paulturtle (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

++++

On a related matter, the sentence in paragraph 2 of the intro to the article says: "Despite frosty relations with Britain and especially the United States, he emerged as the undisputed leader of the French resistance". This is a little misleading, perhaps. "Anglo-Saxon" relations were indeed frosty, but it was Churchill's determination to treat de Gaulle as the Free French leader that made the latter recognised as such. Arrivisto (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This touching myth about Churchill's candid help to de Gaulle, doesn't stand the facts. Churchill plotted to politically eliminate de Gaulle until he was forced to acknowledge that de Gaulle won the struggle for leadership of Free France.[12] I'm not the author of the aforementioned sentence, I suggest its removal as it is Anglo-biased: why do we bother to point out the British/US opinion about de Gaulle in the lead and not Stalin's or Hitler's one, by example.Blaue Max (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We follow the RS that emphasize in multiple books & articles the tensions involved. They say Churchill & FDR made the major decisions about France's role and provided deGaulle's base and his money & his arms (and even his radio). Hitler i think never mentioned him & Stalin played a small role re deGaulle. Rjensen (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The sentence certainly belongs in the lead, as Britain and the USA were the dominant Allied powers and de Gaulle's often spiky relations with them were deliberate and an important part of the story of the war years: his policy of insisting that France still be treated as a Great Power in her own right. Churchill was indeed a proponent of de Gaulle in May and June 1940, when he had just taken office as Prime Minister. In his first months Churchill was keen to the point of self-delusion that France should carry on fighting. Later on relations soured (sinking the French fleet at Oran didn't help) and at one stage iirc de Gaulle even contemplated seeking sanctuary in the Soviet Embassy and transferring his allegiance to the USSR (at the end of 1944 he also made a mission to the USSR and signed a treaty with them, but again that was to ensure that France was treated as a great power in her own right). The Americans were very suspicious of de Gaulle, wrongly believing him to be a British puppet (wanting the European powers, even Britain, to give up their colonial empires was an important part of US policy at this time), and preferred to deal with Darlan and Giraud until de Gaulle squeezed the latter out by force of character. Britain only formally recognized de Gaulle's regime as the official government in exile as late as 1944, after the Americans had done so. Some writers have flagged this up as a classic example of Churchill's arguably excessive appeasement of the USA.Paulturtle (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Co-prince of Andorra

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The table lists de Gaulle as holding the title of Co-Prince of Andorra twice, 1944-46, and 1959-69 but only the second period (59-69) is recognized by Andorra. A longer discussion about a related situation can be found at Talk:List of state leaders in 1947. Mathglot (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

no RS. this is what worthless trivia looks like. Students might treat this as similar to president of France. Rjensen (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Image change to original

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Honestly, Idk who changed the lead image from the original to the current one. I think we should change the lead image to the image de Gaulle is widely known. (N0n3up (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC))

Assessment comment

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Charles de Gaulle/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs references plange 05:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 11:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Trivia on subjects nose shape removed

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Please note that information such as this should be discussed before readding to the article. 2600:1:E143:46A9:DDFF:655E:6F9F:CB69 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussed with what? A drive-by IP-hopper who knows nothing about the subject? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Your comment appears to be a personal attack on me. Please keep your comments focused on content. All I ask is that you gain consensus here before adding the information back into the article. Trivia such as the characteristics of his nose, and the external linking used do not belong in the section on his "Relationships with other political leaders". I would suggest that it would be better discussed in a chat room than added to an encyclopedic article.2600:1:E143:46A9:DDFF:655E:6F9F:CB69 (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You've got like 5 edits here. Maybe you're an experienced editor, but there's no way to know that. Were you around during De Gaulle's lifetime? The one cartoon along the same lines I was not able to find. It was from the Chicago Tribune, following his death, and was not intended as an insult at all - rather, that he and France for decades were synonymous. As far as linking, failure to conform to whatever linking standards they're using this week is not grounds for removal, anywhere on Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs that the material is not necessarily trivia just because it concentrates on a personal characteristic. However, I think using the image itself as a citation is not sufficient as a reliable source for a disputed fact. Are there any reliable sources that mention the connection and the usage? MPS1992 (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What fact is disputed? Google "Charles de Gaulle editorial cartoons" and you will see a whole lot of them that caricature his face, and his nose especially. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, but Google "British beard" or "British moustache", or similar combinations with the names of various British politicians, and you will find lots similar. "Just google it" is not a valid reason for including particular content. Surely if editorial cartoons on this topic were such a significant feature of de Gaulle's popular portrayal, a single reliable source would at least have mentioned it? MPS1992 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I say keep it. the RS in fact do discuss how editorial cartoon exaggerated his nose and why that is memorable. 1) " Khruschev's bald head, John Kennedy's hair, de Gaulle's nose and Jimmy Carter's teeth all became international currency through the cartoonists." Daily Sketches: A Cartoon History of Twentieth Century Britain; 2) "This cartoon on de Gaulle infuriated the French Government and there was an official protest " The Cartoon History of Britain - Page 11: 3) "the newspaper cartoonist who has drawn a hundred cartoons of de Gaulle hardly thinks what he is doing with his pencil while churning out another de Gaulle nose."; Mind Science and History - Page 43; 4) "...the French posters and cartoons. You again will note exaggeration of certain physical features to clarify the cartoon's message. Alexander Dubcek has a large nose, as De Gaulle did." Discovering the Western Past: Since 1500 - Page 393. 5) "consider an editorial cartoon in an internal newsletter or a daily newspaper depicting ... the Prime Minister or other actors (e.g. elongating Charles de Gaulle's nose)" The Routledge Companion to Visual Organization - Page 169 Rjensen (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you for this, I think it should be included on that basis. MPS1992 (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charles de Gaulle. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/politics/language-culture/language-culture-general/vive-le-quebec-libre.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Params=A1ARTFET_E53
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110150329/http://www.cbx41.com/article-29760001-6.html to http://www.cbx41.com/article-29760001-6.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110150329/http://www.cbx41.com/article-29760001-6.html to http://www.cbx41.com/article-29760001-6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Curbing the Communist Resistance

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This section talks about a "disturbing" amount of support. This seems argumentative and in conflict with NPOV. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it--it was DeGaulle who found it disturbing. Rjensen (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

What's a separator rod?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No idea what a separator rod might be, and no indication in the article other than some bit of a Wellington. I postulate that it's somthing in the control linkage. Graham.Fountain | Talk 14:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Cabinets of Charles de Gaulle

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have created this article to save content that was deleted from this article. Feel free to edit (and add sources) as it currently doesn't have any. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Charles de Gaulle. 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:

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) 01:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles de Gaulle. 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:

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) 14:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

[1] Vinen, Richard; The Unfree French; New Haven, CT; Yale University Press; 2006; p. 59

[1]