Talk:Charles de Gaulle (R 91)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles de Gaulle (R 91) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Name question

Should we put this article under Charles de Gaulle or Charles De Gaulle? The name normally seems to be written with a de, so why is the title different? Night Gyr 17:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear... that's one of those topics... "de Gaulle" would imply that the guy in question was nobility; his name was actually written "De Gaulle" (that's the way he wrote his own name for instance). The "De" in question is actually a deformation of the Dutch/German "Der Wahl", "the wall". Now, recently, the son of De Gaulle has written a book which says that they were indeed French nobility and "deserve" the "de"; now, the son in question is a controversial personality (far-right wing...), De Gaulle himself wrote his name with a "De" (and actually wanted it written thusly), and the autoritative sources on the subject always write "De Gaulle", and make no mention of the nobility thing. So I'd recommend "De Gaulle". Now, this is quite unimportant, is it not ? :p Rama 17:28, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Every style guide and biography I've seen has written the name with a lower case de, as does the wikipedia article on the man. Are they all wrong? Night Gyr 17:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, basically, yes. :p You say "De Gaulle", for a start, not "Gaulle" (but you say "Richelieu", not "de Richelieu"). It's just a benign mistake, now so common that it's quite widely accepted -- but the capital is nonetheless correct. Anyway, who cares ? Rama 18:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to the talk page of his article, it was argued and decided that on wikipedia, his name should be lowercase. So why don't we just change this article to be consistent, and not just follow your personal crusade to convince the world that the lowercase "de Gaulle" is wrong? Night Gyr 05:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you don't. I think I have tried to make it as clear as possible that I didn't mind. I don't have a "crusade" about De Gaulle's name, what a strange idea; there are lots of less silly things to spend my time on, aren't they ? Rama 08:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Style question

I've notice that much of the article uses the 1,23 format for decimals, rather than the 1.23. Should this be changed? --Mtnerd 04:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Either one is quite valid, but the same should be used throughout the article for consistency. Wikipedia is a worldwide site and many parts of the world use the 1,1 notation as a matter of course. Seraphimblade 11:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liaison 16 and Liaison 11

I bet Link 16 and Link 11 is ment, two NATO standards. The result of literal translation from French to English? - Alureiter 12:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure, but sounds likely to me that it is the same system, and that they call it Liaison 16 and Liaison 11 in the French navy. Well done at identifying these ! Rama 13:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Not a bid deal. I started a series of articles about ship classes of the German Navy and Link 11 and Link 16 appeared so frequently there that those numbers here ringed a bell. - Alureiter 16:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Largest Western Europe warship since the Tirpitz

HMS Ark Royal III Launched 1950. Displacement 43,060 tons. Why is the UK never part of Western Europe?

It's more likely that ships like HMS Ark Royal III and HMS Vanguard are simply forgotten by most. The Tirpitz is relativly well known. Even the size of the british CVFs is often referred in relation to WWII-Vessels. Nevfennas 11:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
43,060 tons = 39060t! Tirpitz had about the same empty weight when she left the yard, 1944 loaded it was over 53000t. HMS Vanguard: 48500 tons = 44000t. Length: HMS Ark Royal: 245m, HMS Vanguard: 247m, Tirpitz 251m. Alureiter 16:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Utter rubbish. Why would a 1940's Brittish ship be weighed in metric tons? However, the Charles de Gaulle is likely to have been. Anyway The Ark Royal was a heavier ship than the Charles de Gaulle, HMS Vanguard heavier still. They were both launched after Tirpitz without question. Ergo, the Charles de Gaulle was not the largest launched in western Europe since since the Tirpitz. --LiamE 20:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
the ship was not weighed in metric tons. but nowadays it is displayed in metric tons. the ark royal III was 43ts and the tirpitz 53.500 ts in 1944. so the CDG is not the largest ship after the tirpitz 82.83.112.153 18:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

Recommend:

  • Introduction:
    • Removing one of the 2 mentions that the CDG is the 1st nuclear powered carrier outside the US; one mention is surely enough?
    • Removing the bracketed technical detail on the catapult (2nd para) - too technical for an introduction.
  • Development/Construction
    • The sentence "n 1989 however, after a ferocious row, the ship was renamed to Charles De Gaulle the year after by the Gaullist Prime Minister of the time, Jacques Chirac." - was the name change in 1989, the date specified, or 1990, the "year after" mentioned? Needs clarifying.
  • Trials & Technical Problems (propeller incident)
    • Suggest sentence "bubbles in the one-piece copper-aluminium alloy propellers near the center" would be better "bubbles in the one-piece copper-aluminium alloy, near the center"; reason is multiple use of word "propeller" throughout the whole sentence.

Carre 20:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Role of the Charles de Gaulle in the Indian Ocean in 2002

This section of the Wiki article on the Charles de Gaulle is not correct and evidently lacks any credibility as not a single source of information anywhere close to what is written is found either in the print or online media. So, I recommend that this section be removed from the site.

sign please

You are missing the point: this article says that the Breguet Atlantic came from the sea. The idea is apparently to establish a presence which would make it impratictable to launch such missions again. Rama 09:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Atlantique did not came from the sea. Here is the map. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/Images/Map-Kutch.jpg

Chanakyathegreat 10:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed the India-Pakistani crisis section

Removed the India-Pakistani crisis section on 17 July 2006. Inclusion of non verifiable information is not constructive. This section can be reintegrated once any credible information sources are found which validate this claim.

PLEASE reinstate this section ONLY after a credible and verifyable source of info is given. As per WIKI rules, allegations are NOT to be posted into articles so as to remove bias and 'hear say'. You will note that a comment by an Admiral or Minister with such a 'claim' and that too given to a French 'naval' journalist for publication in the local French media is NOT verifyable NOR credible NOR in any manner independant.

80.201.49.213 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Netmarine.net is a credible source, and it is linked at the end of the paragraph. This is not hearsay or speculation.UberCryxic 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I contacted the editors of NETMARINE directly through their website and they informed me that the source of the info is from a FRENCH journalist's interview of the ship's captain. Also, when I asked them to provide data on the claim/allegation they just told me that they cannot prove the facts. Period. SO, please repost this ONLY AFTER re-verifying from them on what whey have to back-up their claim.

80.201.49.213 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as netmarine says it, that's all that matters. The condition for a reputable source is qualified; whether it's true or not is another matter. From your description, I don't actually see a problem anywhere. The journalist asked the captain, who said what the article says, and netmarine publicized it. Now Wikipedia is using it. Exactly what is the issue here? Charging that the information is unverifiable can't be it, because certainly what you could do is ask the Indians and the Pakistanis if that happened. Until they come down with some definitive answer in the negative, I don't see why the statement should not stay.UberCryxic 23:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you know what is NETMARINE ? It is the 'non-official' propaganda tool for the French Navy. It's articles are biased and it is known in France to state 'one part of the truth'. Please see the debate on BLUE WATER NAVIES (discussion page) on WIKI. It was agreed there that just publishing and article in a journal is NOT enough. Also, when statements are made by persons who do not have 'authority to act' in the name of a STATE, especially in country to country affairs, the 'claim' should not come onto WIKI unless verified and verifyable from independant sources.

I have asked for an ARBITRATION from WIKI. So, please wait for this ... I asked you 3 times to wait for a WIKI arbitration. Am VERY SURPRISED to see that you call me "Disruptive User". YOU are being DISRUPTIVE in NOT waiting for the arbitration from someone from WIKI. Why are you impatient ? Are you French by any chance and have vested interests in seeing this claim appear on WIKI ? So, please be patient and WAIT for arbitration by WIKI authors.

80.201.49.140 23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

??? I did not call you a "disruptive user." Some other guy did though. I am being patient; I've only reverted twice. A comprehensive solution would be fine by me, as opposed to silly reverting. Although you should be aware that if you want a comprehensive solution, you should first let the status quo remain, then after the community has come with down with a decision, we can make the necessary changes. What you are doing now is coming here and arbitrarily changing the article......then you are asking for me not to take any action. It's as if the burden is on me here somehow. I am not French. I am Albanian and I don't see how my nationality would matter here; the only relevant aspect is the arguments presented.UberCryxic 23:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My 2 bits : Firstly, UberCryxic ought to wait for WIKI's arbitration and/or a debate/discussion in order to have a consensus on this issue before reintegrating the section into the FN Charles de Gaulle page. Secondly, the point on the 'status quo' is not what is generally the norm on WIKI articles. Only consensus articles make it (normally) to the articles pages. Atleast that is the policy that I use when I have done my WIKI article submissions. Just an opinion. Take it or leave it.

Ravigateway 00:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is always incumbent upon the person who wants to make the change, especially a big change such as this, to the article to gage community consensus, unless it's obvious vandalism or something. In this case, what should happen is the statement should stay until the community decides that it does not belong (and if it does then no problem). Here there is no strong indication that what netmarine says is unverifiable somehow.UberCryxic 00:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi UberCryxic. What the user says is not without reason. My reasoning in five points : (1) It is not as if he is intent on destroying the article and being a vandal. In asking for arbitration right from the start when he made the change and explained it immediately in the discussion page (I've verified it in the article's history) and stated that he contacted NetMarine (2) My understanding of WIKI article submission and retention policy is closer to the views expressed by the user. (3) I did go to the discussion page of the "Blue Water Navies" that was cited in the discussion and must point out that your suggestion of 'status quo' was not applied when they wanted to extend the list. The discussion continued without any inclusions till a consensus was reached. (4) Unless the WIKI policies changed during the summer months, I think that the user does have a valid point in asking for independant verification of facts. (5) If we admit that anything that is printed becomes facts, then we are walking the thin line that separates propaganda and verifyable independant facts.

Ravigateway 00:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

For blue-water navies, the community had already decided which ones were and which ones were not blue-water navies, although the enforcement was a whole other matter. You can see, for example, that I removed Russia after it was recently added because we had prior conversations agreeing that Russia does not belong there. I don't need to open another conversation on that front; I can just go ahead and revert. Here it's different because apparently there were people who disagreed with this user when he first made the revert. That paragraph has also been there for long periods of time, unlike the blue-water navy article, which is suscpetible to sudden changes. There's nothing wrong with asking for a verification of facts, but until the user can actually show that the material is unverifiable (or actually go ahead and make an own attempt at verification), then I don't see why it needs to be removed at will.UberCryxic 00:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I find his initial conditions unsettling. He wrote in his latest edit, "please wait for an arbitration prior to reverts." The problem with this: why can't you wait for an arbitration prior to reverting? Why does the way the article has been for weeks and months now have to wait for an arbitration? Just weird.UberCryxic 00:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Because he reverted first, and asked for arbitration at that point. The rest of you should have waited before reverting back. It's just common wiki-courtesy. -BillCJ 00:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That isn't how it works though. Here in Wikipedia, you don't dictate the pace of the game just because you got an early start. If your edits are controversial and sweeping, you better wait and make sure others are in agreement. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't be that worried about letting this go because eventually someone else is going to revert to keep the statement in. The user's reasons for its removal are not good enough.UberCryxic 00:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is how it works. Questionable material is deleted until it is verified. Also, he did call Netmarine himself about the material, so he did attempt to verify the souce. I honestly am not sure what he is objecting to, but he handled it properly. As far as waitng awhile before he reverted the material, he may have been away. -BillCJ 01:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that's not how it goes. Your very basic assumption, that the material is questionable, is faulty (see source below). If the changes involve something like deleting a whole paragraph, especially on an article not that long (like this), then they need to be thoroughly discussed here before making a move on the actual article. You don't say to someone, "hey I reverted you first, so you have to wait until consensus is reached." That's madness. The edits should be judged on their own accord. If this user's edits are ridiculous, and they are, then they should be squashed.UberCryxic 01:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have understood it, the burden of proof in Wikipedia is on the one adding the questionable material to cite a reputable source. You all have been engaging in a revert war. Once he asked for arbitration/discussion, the rest should have waited for a concensus. -BillCJ 01:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, to everyone involved, is this new source good enough?

`French jets patrolled Indo-Pak. coastline'

Tell me what you think, but now there should be no doubt.UberCryxic 01:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm, a few points:

  • The first recourse of any disagreement should be discussion (polite discussion!) on the talk page.
  • "Arbitration" means this; it's probably not something you want to pursue lightly, as it tends to end up with people banned. Presumably you just meant getting an outside opinion, though, so I'll try to offer one.
  • The French site in question may be reliable, but that's not necessarily something immediately apparent; presumably there's some reason why it's considered a good source that I'm not aware of? In any case, corroboration from other sources would be a good thing.
  • However, the actual point being made appears to have at least some bearing on reality, as it's mentioned here (not, in of itself, a particlarly good source either) and sourced back to "It Takes Two to Interoperate" from the August 2002 issue of the Journal of Electronic Defense (which is a quite reputable source). I haven't been able to find a full copy of the article online, though; it'd be great if someone could track down a copy and see what exactly it reports.
  • The details, however, are a bit unclear, as the operation is described in the site above as "reconnaissance"; it's not clear, to me, whether this is the same thing that the French site is describing.

Kirill Lokshin 01:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi all! First of all, let me make it very clear that I have no personality issues with anyone (including UberCryxic). I'm just trying to do my best to view and provide feebback on articles where I think that the content must be discussed and the sections be re-written or deleted. If there is some old info that anyone/someone did not see earlier, it is never too late to correct it to reflect the latest thinking and/or facts. Just to illustrate the point, if we published everything that the (now defunct) PRAVDA newspaper printed into WIKI just imagine the disaster. As for NETMARINE, It is not PRAVDA. OK. But, if any WIKI mediator/arbitrator needs the contact info of the persons I was in touch with, I am OK to send it to them. I guess that everyone got my point. I have nothing against the French Navy nor the French or anyone else. All I want is a decent and RESPECTFUL discussions so as to make WIKIPEDIA the most comprehensive and accurate online info repository ever.
As for the article from the HINDU. I have seen it. And I did try to get the article in the LIBERATION. Not finding it, that was when I contacted NETMARINE to ask them about it. NetMarine told me that the LIBERATION article was written by a FRENCH DEFENSE 'embedded journalist'. So, you see, this is a view of the French Navy ... and I do ask you to prove by any other source (any French Ministery or official document or for that matter even from US or Indian or Pakistani sources) about this 'claim'. My suggestion (only a suggestion) is that we can clearly state in the INdo-Pakistan patrols section that the LIBERATION article stated that (bla bla bla) and that these claims are not verifyable through Government document sources.

80.200.125.62 01:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How about we just say, "The Hindu reported that French newspaper Liberation said, [enter info]".....it is probably difficult to find the original Liberation article online because it was so long ago.01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's possible, but not the best option; I still think it would be preferable if someone could track down the Journal of Electronic Defense article I mentioned. The sourcing on that one may be from US sources, as US Navy fighters apparently also took part in this operation. Kirill Lokshin 01:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Kirill Lokshin ... and let me clarify : The French Navy was/is operating off the Pakistani coast in operations against Afghanistan. That is a fact. Even George Bush thanked the French for their help in patrolling the waters and conducting flight-operations over Afghanistan. HOWEVER, the claim that those assets were ALSO used to patrol Indian waters is very hard to believe and must be taken with a pinch of salt ... especially if there is NO official document or statement that proves that this was actually the case. It is just the case of a comment by the Captain of the vessel made to the visiting journalist and which got published and re-published without verifying the claim. Also, IF the US were involved, there OUGHT to be a document somewhere/anywhere. Why nothing on this ?

80.200.125.62 01:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Your personal theories and suppositions aside, which is sounding more and more like original research now, the fact that a major newspaper in India reported on it is good enough. There is an article in the Journal of Electronic Defense that apparently speaks about the joint Franco-American operation, but so far no one can access it. We are taking this seriously, hence the source change.UberCryxic 01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the US NAVY was supposed to have conducted the 'joint patrols', I find it surprising that not a single US NAVY article or US DoD operations briefing mentions anything about this operation. We are on shaky ground with the existing info sources that are neither verifiable NOR independant. For now, I'm going to leave it to the arbitrators to figure out if they wish to have FACTS or CLAIMS on their articles in the WIKI repository.

The reason why the above statement is odd is because claims are exactly what you are making. You yourself admitted above that it's "hard to believe," implying that it could have happened. Either way, I'd like to think that the article in The Hindu is far more reliable than you are. In that sense, those claims should take higher precedence than your claims.UberCryxic 01:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I'm not going to get into a edit fighting match (which you started btw). I tried to be respectful when I removed the section and IMMEDIATELY posted a comment in the DISCUSSION section. That was being decent. The persons who followed and did the 'reverts' despite my repeated messages about waiting for arbitration just shows that there are some persons who do not understand what courtesy and etiquette is all about. As for the section contents, all that I'm just asking you to show me FACTS. I'm not going to believe anything just because you find 2 articles each originating/refering to the same source. Why are you so interested in maintaining that this must have happened ? I'm just interested in seeing your facts. Also, as I have continually maintainted, I do not know if the operation did happen in reality. Finally, just because something is published in 2 newspapers as a CLAIM does not make it a FACT. I am for a WIKI that sticks to the facts and has SOLID and CONCRETE evidence to any claims with ATLEAST two independant and verifyable sources of info. Give me a US Govt document OR a French Govt doc source and I'll fully support your section in the article.

80.200.125.62 02:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

For our purposes, I'll give you something better than fact. I'll give you Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability', not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

This is something that's commonly misunderstood about Wikipedia, but it is an important point. Wikipedia is not here to document facts; it is only here to document what reliable sources say about any given event. In this case, that Hindu article is, in many ways, the reliable source (and certainly so far it merits that title).UberCryxic 02:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. We do not own WIKI. Period. Let the judges decide. If for any reason you think that I have violated a WIKI policy for disruptive purposes and that asking for QUALITY info on articles is to be held against me, then PLEASE go ahead had report me to the WIKI administrators and I'll bear the consequences. Obviously IF they find that my comments/points are invalid then I stand to be corrected.

Let's work on new text. How about this for the language:

In 2002, according to Indian newspaper The Hindu, French newspaper Liberation reported that Rafale jetfighters created a buffer zone between India and Pakistan during the height of the crisis in June. The Rafales patrolled the Indian and Pakistani coasts armed with live air-air munitions, with the aim of preventing incidents such as in 1999 when a Pakistani Breguet Atlantique coming from the sea, possibly on an intelligence mission, was shot down by Indian forces.

What do you think?UberCryxic 02:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah ... So, after 4 hours or so you are down to what I suggested in the first place : DEBATING, DISCUSSING and arriving at a CONSENSUS. This is what WIKI is about. As for your article suggestion, I want to agree only once I see the full text that you intend posting. However, I have some points for consideration : <1> The section about the Combat Air Patrols should be verifyable by 'official' sources (give me a US or French or India or Pakistani document) <2> Setting superior quality standards for WIKI is not a luxury <3> Personally I am not inclined to mention this CLAIM at all in the first place. But, I may be wrong in having this opinion <4> Lastly, (sorry to repeat myself) 2 articles in the print media about something that is not verifyable from RELIABLE SOURCES don't make a FACT.
There seems to be some confusion here. The two articles do not necessarily make the existence of the operation itself a fact, but they certainly do verify the existence of media reporting that operation—which is all being claimed in the version above. The two newspapers in question are generally reliable sources, so there's nothing wrong with reporting the claims they make; we are not stating that those claims are or are not correct, but merely relating what a third party says on the topic. Kirill Lokshin 02:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a fact though; you keep confusing this. It just has to be a reliable source. These allegations about it not being verifiable are just your claims, hence original research. They are irrelevant. Sorry to be brusque, but you are not for arriving at consensus at all. You arbitrarily removed an entire paragraph without breaking a sweat; where is the consensus in that? In fact, you still keep reverting. You should at least be glad that I am willing to discuss this under your terms, which are unfair. But if it will lead to an ultimate solution, which is really the only thing that matters, then so be it.UberCryxic 02:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Before I started out to edit this article I checked my sources and followed up the trail by writing to the editors of NETMARINE. For your info, if you want to have a detailed discussion with him you can do so. The contact is LV Jean-Michel Roche - Frégate Courbet 83 800 Toulon Armées. Send this serving French Naval sailor a letter and he'll describle to you as he did to me the circumstances under which they got this info. To quote him on the LIBERATION article and the source of info he would only say "de sources surs" (translated as "from trust-worth sources"). So much for your claim that this is 'original research'. To your points on the RELIABILITY of the info, I am in favour ONLY IF you agree to re-write the text to describle without a doubt that this is an ALLEGATION and that the info has not and connot be RELIABLY VERIFIED INDEPENDANTLY and from any Government or official sources.
As mentioned we need to base articles on RELIABLE SOURCES as per WIKI policy. What are the RELIABLE SOURCES here ? To point out to an article in the HINDU, that itself takes sources from an article in the LIBERATION, which is not findable and this added to the fact that the supposedly 'joint patrols' were done with US NAVY planes but which have NO MENTION anywhere is like printing stories that are meant for the SUN or the DAILY MIRROR in the gossip columns. That is my opinion. Let us either stick to the RELIABLE VERIFYABLE facts (best course of action) or if we still want to place info into the article we need to make it absolutely EXPLICIT that this section is an ALLEGATION and that there are no VERIFYABLE INFO sources anywhere.
The Hindu article is a reliable source. Your opinion seems pretty stale in this case. Intuitively speaking, there are major differences between the Sun and the Hindu. The appropriate thing to do is merely to mention that the Hindu says that the Liberation reports such and such. Anything else borders on original research.UberCryxic 03:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The reliable source in question is the article in the Hindu. Let's try this again:
  • The Hindu article is not a direct source for the French activities.
  • The Hindu article is, however, a direct source for the fact that the Liberation reported the French activities.
  • Therefore, we can source the statement "The Liberation reported that X" to the Hindu, which is a reliable source for that statement.
Note that nowhere here have we assumed that the Liberation's report is actually correct—we are merely making the assertion that there was a report in the Liberation. Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


We seem to be making progress. I am in favour of a text along the lines mentioned by Kirill Lokshin. My suggestion will be to have something along the lines of : "The Indian newspaper The Hindu reprinted excerpts from the French newspaper the Liberation about alleged joint-patrols by US and French airplanes (bla bla bla)". BTW, I'm going to write to the LIBERATION tomorrow and try to get hold of the article to see what it actually contained. Please post your versions of the text here on the discussion page for everyone to see and comment before inclusion to the article. Thanks.

After re-reading the Active Service section, I'm wondering if we really need this much info on one ship, especially since most of it is unsourced. We really don't need to know every time she dumped her garbage. Just the highlights of her service would suffice, covering the lengths and areas of each cruise, with one or two paragraphs on some very notable events. We really only need one sentence stating that she "may" have been involved in the Indo-Pakistani affair, with a link to the source. Cutting out alot of the superfluous information would go along way to reducing further conflicts like this. -BillCJ 04:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Lot of unwanted comments added in the article. I think it need to be corrected. There is no need of any unwanted suggestions in the section, like adding the Atlantique incident. It did not happen over the sea. It was over the land and such incidents cannot be prevented by anyone since they happen over airspace over the land and no external forces have access to it, otherwise it will result in the violation of boundary and those forces will be shot down.

Second thing is that the Hindu newspaper is quoting a report published in the French daily Liberation and quoting from it, since the Hindu did not have any information other than the French daily. For us to keep the section alive there need to be the French article that has created all this controversy. If that cannot be found then it is impossible to keep the section without verifying it. Certain articles that are unverified or wrong msut have been withdrawn by the French magazine themselves as it is common with newspapers. Another aspect is that if such a thing has happened it will have created a lot of controversary in the Indian and paksitani press, which has not happened.

Chanakyathegreat 06:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No point raising the stakes higher than where they already stand. Everyone stands to gain by using some diplomacy in their postings and be more inclusive by taking into account the opinions and suggestions posted by the others on this discussion.

Ravigateway 14:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

>>> UberCryxic WROTE : (rv...that's a logical fallacy....just because we haven't found any evidence yet does not mean that the event did not happen....in all likelihood, based on what we do have now, it did happen.

Someone needs to put the brakes on UberCryxic. He is being a nuisance apart from using 'fuzzy logic'. From what I know, WIKI is about quality info (someone mentioned "information from reliable and verified sources") and not about revert wars based on 'fuzzy logic'. First part of his statement : "just because we haven't found any evidence yet" so he does admit that there is absolutely no evidence. It is clear to everyone that atleast right now it is zero. Then comes the second part of the statement : "based on what we do have now, it did happen". Based on what ??? I don't understand 'UberCryxic logic'. This chap is just interested in bullying others and something needs to be done to stop his reverts. 81.247.192.97 13:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This debate goes a long way to demonstrate that Wikipedia contributors must recognise the need to present quality info for readers. If we publish half-truths and gossip then we run into these kind of endless debates. Kirill Lokshin wrote "That's possible, but not the best option; I still think it would be preferable if someone could track down the Journal of Electronic Defense article I mentioned" when he tried to see how best to identify reliable and verified sources. Also there is Chanakyathegreat who made the point "For us to keep the section alive there need to be the French article that has created all this controversy. If that cannot be found then it is impossible to keep the section without verifying it. Certain articles that are unverified or wrong msut have been withdrawn by the French magazine themselves as it is common with newspapers". Ravigateway highlighted that "Only consensus articles make it (normally) to the articles pages". I fully support these kinds of mediation effort to resolve the problem in a constructive manner. UberCryxic should have waited for the discussion to take place before starting the 'reverts war'. As BillCJ said earlier "The rest of you should have waited before reverting back. It's just common wiki-courtesy".

82.174.171.29 14:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, EVERYBODY should have waited until we reached a concensus to make further changes to the contested section, once the discussion began. -BillCJ 21:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hindu is a very reliable source, despite your continuing denial. As was mentioned many times above, the truth value of the content is not necessarily at stake here. The only thing that matters it that a reputable source made the claim. I agree that it would be nice - great actually - to find the French original, but to remove the paragraph if we fail to do so is a bit dangerous. Again, all that's really significant is that the Hindu reported that the Liberation said such and such. The rest is irrelevant in the context of Wikipedia. In a personal conversation, then yes we could have a sincere debate about whether this actually happened, was likely to happen, and things to that effect.UberCryxic 21:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi to everyone. BillCJ is right. Everyone should have stopped 'edit reverts' on the main page as soon as mediation and discussion was called. Please read the Wikipedia policies thoroughly please. Especially the following : Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, revert and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. I have a feeling that certain persons have not fully understood the fundamental philosophy. Instead of personal interpretations of Wikipedia rules and guidelines, please follow the established policies. Within revert you'll find some illumination :

  1. Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
  2. Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor posess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.
  3. Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.82.174.171.29 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We were both at fault in how we behaved. There was no misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy on my part, but I did act impatiently and perhaps was a little haughty. I apologize for that. Now I am hoping that we can move past this to restore some semblance of normalcy to the article. Apparently we have a dispute, which is what's preventing us from editing the article, so let's resolve that. My request is that we leave it at the stage we reached yesterday: Hindu article says that Liberation reports yadda yadda yadda....what are the objections to this? ThanksUberCryxic 22:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As a refresher, please also take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ

"How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues? The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides."

82.174.171.29 23:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. What are your objections to leaving the article at the stage that was reached yesterday?UberCryxic 23:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you place the version you are reffering to in the space below so that we all know exactly which version you mean? Thanks. -BillCJ 23:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks BillCJ for suggesting that I register onto Wikipedia. I can imagine that my dynamic IP addressing is confusing to keep track of who said what. OK so here I go with my ID which is NATOBXL. Natobxl 00:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed version of the disputed paragraph

From 9 June–19 June 2002, the Charles De Gaulle and her group allegedly carried out interposition missions to ease the tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. According to the French daily newspaper Liberation, the Rafales patrolled the Indian and Pakistani coasts armed with live air-air munitions, with the aim of preventing incidents such as in 1999 when a Pakistani Breguet Atlantique coming from the sea, possibly on an intelligence mission, was shot down by Indian forces.[1] There are no known official accounts from government sources to authenticate these claims.UberCryxic 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to reclarify my position on the 'substance' of this issue :
  1. In no manner have I said that The Hindu is not a reputed newspaper. It is South India's leading newspaper and for your info I subscribe to the overseas edition myself. The Hindu is a 'reliable media organisation'. Nevertheless, Wikipedia requires (to quote from it's official policy statement) "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source".
  2. The point I continue (and will continue) to make over and over again is simply that all information should be at the very least from not only 'reliable media organisations' but not stop at that. It should also be from 'reliable sources'. Any info that selected as a source of information must be verified ... especially if it leads to a controversy. Kindly refer to wiki policy on this. Facts take precedence over allegations. Wikipedia is more than a simple a data repository. It is a global encyclopedia.
  3. You need to take into account the point made by BillCJ "Cutting out alot of the @superfluous information would go a long way to reducing further conflicts like this". This view is shared also by Chanakyathegreat and myself. Refer to the relevant posts.
  4. My opinion is that we stick to the basics. Let's talk about the ship, it's salient features and missions. If you want a 'gossip page' with allegations and controversial material, then create one elsewhere.
  5. BillCJ said "As I have understood it, the burden of proof in Wikipedia is on the one adding the questionable material to cite a reputable source"
  6. To quote from Wikipedia site : 'Because Wikipedia is a wiki, and open to collaborative editing by anyone, assessing its reliability requires also examining its ability to detect and rapidly remove false or misleading information" and "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

For the time being these are my comments. So long as you continue to pursue the path of maintaining this section in the article without taking into consideration the comments (constructive criticism) of other contributors, my concerns will remain. Natobxl 00:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What, specifically, are your concerns with the above version? After you answer this question, may you please offer your own version so that I can better realize where you stand? Thank you.UberCryxic 01:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, it is not just me who feels that this section can be done away with altogether if there is no additional substantiation on the 'reliable source' front; especially in light of the comments posted by all the contributors. Please read all the user comments/concerns carefully instead of asking the same questions and having me repeat the same answers again and again. Thanks. Natobxl 01:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have some further questions for those supporting the paragraph: Why do you feel that this information is necessary to the article? How is it enhanced by being here? Yes, it was reported in a reputable source, but leaving out the question of verifiability, why does it need to be here? Why is this event so important that in must be detailed in this article? I'm not asking why the information should be allowed. Rather, what about the itself information merits its inclusion here? -BillCJ 01:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To Bill: the alternative can be asked as well. Why do you feel like it needs to be removed, if that is how you feel? My main concern is not necessarily with "wanting" it there, but rather with the fact that removing it so drastically is haphazard, precarious, and....so sudden? Just a little?

To Nat: The Hindu is reliable and that is all that really matters. The problem is that you continue to doubt the veracity of the claim, but the only significant aspect of this debate is that a claim is being made by a reliable source. That is grounds, at least, for inclusion, though I can't say for what else.UberCryxic 01:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Some more explanation for Bill: if this actually did happen, it would represent the first time the Rafale was used in a combat role....I think....ever. In Afghanistan, its use was restricted. So it's an important historical moment for one of the great fighters of the 21st century.UberCryxic 01:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about the Rafale specifically, but its mother ship. In addition, no actions were taken; we don't usually report everytime a fighter didn't fire, but rather when it did. Good news is no news. Also, you still seem hung up on how the information was removed in the first place. We have to move on from that; what's done is done. --BillCJ 02:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: at this point, I have read all contributions. My impression is that much of what is being said, like the 'impossibility' of this having happened, is original research (particularly on Chanakya's part). I can only say that this should be ignored and dismissed as irrelevant. Really our focus should be on the source given and what it says.UberCryxic 01:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(My Disclaimer: thinking aloud = pure speculation) France could not and would not have risked an 'incident' with either Pakistan or India without a UN mandate for a 'peacekeeping' role in the Indian sub-continent. From what we know, there exists no mandate to this effect. Only Pakistan allows (under UN auspicies) 'Allied Coalition Forces' & NATO to operate in it's waters for their operations in Afghanistan. Since India's independance, the country has never allowed anyone in it's waters without an invitation. I recall the field day that the Indian press had when a helicopter from a US Naval warship visiting Chennai deviated from it's flight path and supposedly flew close to the nuclear reactor facility at Kalpakkam. Anycase, all this is pure speculation. I am interested in facts. If the US was involved, there OUGHT to be a document somewhere/anywhere. Why nothing on this? So, before raising the rhetoric on this front, the 'proof of burden' requires that we find any official document (US DoD, Indian, French or Pakistani) to this effect.Natobxl 02:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As to my reasonings, I don't see the importance of including a minor event where nothing happened in an article about a ship. I am sure that are myriad other minor incidents that have happened to the "de Gaulle" that are documented in reliable publications. Should we report them all here just because they've been published elsewhere? The information may be totally true, but does it need to be here?

I have done some searching on Wiki for information on the Indo-Pak incident in 2002, but have not found an article covering it in depth. There is an article on the Atlantique Incident in the aftermath of the Kargil War, which is what the French were supposed to be preventing a repeat of. Perhaps the detalis of the incident and sources should go there (or another suitable article). We could then have one sentence stating that the ship and her fighters may have participated in such-and-such, with a link. --BillCJ 02:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To rest my case, I quote from Wikipedia Wikipedia:Reliable sources :

Wikipedia Reliability

Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them.

Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Typically peer reviewed publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next. Government publications are often reliable, but governments vary widely in their level of reliability, and often have their own interests which will explicitly allow for withholding of information, or even outright deception of the public. Below this are sources which, while not tangible, can be providers of reliable information in some cases, for example websites associated with reliable publishers.

  1. With any source, multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability, if several sources have independently checked a fact or assertion, then it is more reliable than one which is not checked.
  2. Sources where there are multiple steps to publication, such as fact checking and editorial oversight, are more reliable, other things being equal, than those without these procedures.

Natobxl 02:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. We only have one source here. Though reliable, it is quoting another source, so the information is second-hand. In addition, the incident has not been confirmed by any other source, government or otherwise. If the event had any real significance or importance, it would most likely be widely reported. --BillCJ 02:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is enough WIKI official policy to support this section to be deleted. So, if there is no consensus, I am going to escalate this to the next level. UberCryxic is just wasting our time with endless arguing without any intention to go by Wikipedia official rules and policies. He just makes up his own. When confronted with the comments (constructive criticism), he has repeatedly written it off as 'original research' and is condescending in his statements. Natobxl 02:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Again for the benefit of UberCryxic

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence (quoted from Wikipedia:Reliable sources)

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

  1. Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
  2. Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
  3. Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
  4. Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues.

Natobxl 02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To Bill: since the Rafales were stationed on the CDG, then this does become quite a significant event. They represent a major forward step in the integration of the naval version Rafales with the CDG (that is, that they had the confidence to actually do this).

To Nat: Statements like "My Disclaimer" only reinforce my point that much of what is being said here is original research with little or no relevance as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I understand that you have several arguments for why this likely did not happen, but they are irrelevant. The only relevant thing that matters here is that the Hindu article said another reputable paper publish such and such information. Under all the criteria you've listed - thank you for that by the way - this statement qualifies to be in here.UberCryxic 03:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues.
How does it meet that criteria? You have one source quoting another one no one can find.? How is that "multiple sources'? --BillCJ 03:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
So far there is the Hindu article and the Rafale page from fighter-planes.com that Kirill put up.UberCryxic 03:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok ramble on UberCryxic... Enough said. No point trying to play by the rules with you. You are determined to frustrate all attempts to make you abide by Wikipedia guidelines for content.Natobxl 03:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Are there any (other than UberCryxic) takers with valid arguments for the case on maintaining this section ? If in 24 hours we have not received anything, we can assume that the issue is settled and the content can be recommended for deletion (through the appropriate channels & procedures). Also, I'm going ask for a clean-up of this article. Natobxl 03:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly certain the guidelines would have no problem with including this material. I would also like to ask why are you imposing timelines? Seems unilateral. We cannot assume that the issue is settled if no one besides ourselves answers within 24 hours; that standard is a bit ridiculous (and, as is obvious, contrived for the occassion).UberCryxic 03:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious you believe this information is worth keeping in the article. But is it worth keeping the CDG page protected for months on end while we squabble about one event? Losing that portion does nothing to hurt the credibility of the article. But if you haven't convinced us of its worth, how do you expect the mediator to be convinced? --BillCJ 03:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic please stop being a nuisance. You know that there are guidelines for those who don't play by the rules ? You claim to know all about wikipedia rules and guidelines but don't demonstrate respect to anyone here.Natobxl 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey BillCJ! No point buddy. UberCryxic is isolated from all reasonable talk. So, let's leave it as things stand and ignore him. He is just intent on disrupting and creating a scene. Let's just ignore his provocations.Natobxl 03:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I have created any provocations. I certainly don't feel like I have, but it is possible that I'm missing something. Anyway, this recent language on your part will probably not help resolve the situation. We should stay committed to focusing on the issue.
To Bill: the event is significant because it marks the combat debut of the Rafale, in coordination with the CDG. In that sense, it represents a big step forward for the French Navy. Do you believe that does not make it significant enough?UberCryxic 03:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Combat debut? That usually means they were fired upon, or fired at a target. Aircraft carry live weapons at various times, but its not combat till they use them. The whole cruise was significant in that it was the first operational use of the Rafale, but do we really need this much detail? -BillCJ 04:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and did you see what the internet comes up with about this 'big step' ? Look here are some examples I found on forums and free press sites : Pakistani Defense Forum Aspire Free Press Site Fighter-Planes Forum Forums, blogs and free press sites are places to which even you can contribute articles.

  1. Are we talking of AFP, Reuters, CNN, BBC, AP, etc., NO
  2. Are we taking of Govt information sources NO

Are these your reliable and credible sources. Natobxl 04:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hindu article is certainly no joke though. It is very reliable in every way. Up until now, that's essentially what has driven this debate. But see below for more information.UberCryxic 04:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I should note that there is also a JED article that I believe you have not mentioned so far. That talks about these missions and does so in no uncertain terms apparently. From August 2002, that article is far more reliable than anything we've put in here so far.UberCryxic 04:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another piece of evidence

This is probably the best thing yet. This site actually cites that JED article:

According to French executives, some unofficial training engagements have already taken place between Rafales and US Navy F/A-18s. On June 9, 2002, Rafale Ms of the French Navy operating from the Charles de Gaulle participated in a joint patrol with American fighters. Although the assignment was for reconnaissance over the tense India-Pakistan border and no shots were fired, it marked the official combat debut of the aircraft (see "It Takes Two to Interoperate,"JED , August 2002).

This is more reliable than the Hindu article.UberCryxic 04:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should rephrase that paragraph around this site. Basically, drop the part about the Rafales trying to ease the tensions between India and Pakistan and just say, partly, that American and French fighters conducted reconaissaince near the tense Indo-Pakistani border as part of an unofficial exercise. It marked the Rafale's combat debut....and so on and so forth.UberCryxic 04:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Refer back to the "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" (quoted from Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Where are the exceptional pieces of evidence ? No where. Where are the multiple credible and verifiable sources of info required especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues (quoted from Wikipedia:Reliable sources)? No where. Where is the Liberation article ? Not found. What did it exactly contain ? Don't know. Where is the JED article ? Can't find. What did it fully say ? No one can produce the document.Natobxl 05:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What really happened

I am astonished to find such a thing has been claimed to have happened during the Kargil war. http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002/07/04/stories/2002070407221200.htm

I don't think it has really happened, because of three reasons. The incident that the French has placed an aircraft carrier and prevented a war is a postitive thing and the French government have claimed it outright since it will bring a lot of postive admiration for the French. The second is that the France did not operate without U.N mandate and there was no U.N mandate or any coalition effort in that manner. Third, the Indian Navy themselves have claimed to have stopped the war by moving the fleet into the Arabian sea close to Pakistan which prevented further escalation of war by Pakisitan.

Unrelated to the debated incident. http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/dec/04ashok.htm

No one has forgotten how the Indian Navy's Eastern and Western Fleets, concentrated in the northern Arabian Sea during the Kargil war, were able to deter Pakistan from escalating its foolhardy military adventure.

Indian Navy celebrates its silent Kargil victory "People know about the role that the Army and the Air Force played during the Kargil war. But little do they know about Navy." He added with pride, "Thirty Indian Naval ships parked themselves outside Karachi. Just 13 nautical miles from the harbour, in the contiguous waters. It did the trick. It conveyed to Pakistan what the warfare in Himalayas and diplomatic channels could not spell out. They started pulling out of Kargil."

Chanakyathegreat 05:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The article in the Hindu is not a report from the Newspaper itself. The editor of Hindu found an article in the French newspaper Liberation and wrote that the French newspaper is claiming that such a thing has happened. The Editor of the Hindu did not have any information about the incident. He is in a situation similar to ours without knowing what really happened.

It was not during the Kargil war. The Kargil war happened during 1999 and even the Atlantique incident has happened just after the Kargil war in 1999. This incident is said to have happened during 9 June-19 June 2002. The said incident is after the attack on Indian Parliment that happened on December 13, 2001.

I cannot edit the article since it is locked. Now let's look into the various actions by the French Navy in the Indian Ocean before the said incident. I am quoting from netmarine.

The Coalition forces is said to be operating against the Taliban during this period and carrying out strikes against Taliban from the AC's postitioned in the Arabian sea. Remember that aircrafts have to overfly Pakistan for this.

After the attack on the Taliban and the retake of Afghanistan from the Taliban, this happened.

The Indian Minister for Defense, Mr. George Fernandes, and the chief of the Indian Navy, the admiral Madhvendra Singh went on the aircraft carrier, on May 14, 2002. This visit was paid within the framework of a joint exercise carried out with the Indian Navy. Baptized Varuna II, the exercise proceeded with broad of Goa (western of India) and implied the air and sea group of the aircraft carrier like two Indian warships (a frigate and a destroyer).

Here is an instance of the French Navy exercising with the Indian Navy before the said incident. Excercises are conducted to improve relations and to train for joint opertions. The presence of Indian defence minister is also significant. Do anyone thing that the French will act in a manner that will effect the relationship with India. Another aspect is that for India, the relationship with France and the U.S is still continuing and seems to have strenghtened with more exercises, purchase of Scorpenes from France, rather than any deterioration. I think everyone here know that the 1971 incident of the intervention of the U.S navy in the war and the sending of Indian task force to stop it. That incident has affected the Indo-U.S relations for many years to come till recently. There seems no such deterioration of relationship between India and France and hence it can be concluded that even if the said incident happened it has not in a negative manner for India. Was the French Navy able to prevent an attack by Pakistan, that need to be looked into. Or they threatened Pakistan to allow them to overfly Pakistan to target the Taliban after Pakisitan stopped assistance in the war aginst terror.

The Charles of Gaulle leaves the theatre of operations off Pakistan, accompanied by 2 anti-submarine frigates of which Latouche-Tréville, Cassard, a supply tanker and a Saphir submarine to join the coasts of the Red Sea, where it takes part of 19 in May 29 in a exercise unites free-Saoudis baptized Red Shark 1. He joined then the Indian Ocean at the beginning of June, and y remains the time of the behaviour of Loya Jirga (the Afghan assembly traditional which indicates a government of transition). With more than 777 operational flights, the planes of the Charles of Gaulle carried out until June 19

"A secret mission for the baptème of the fire of the Rafale From the 9 at June 19, the French air and sea group interposes between India and Pakistan, then in full crisis. Clashing with the Cashmere, these two nuclear powers threatened to come to the weapons. For the first time, the Rafale carry out real missions of combat air patrol. Armed with air-to-air missiles, they ensure, several times per day, of the two hour old patrols, in collaboration with F-14 and F-18 of US flying Navy.En off the Indian and Pakistani coasts, these fighters neutralize the zone while Hawkeye take part in the air and maritime monitoring. By their dissuasive presence, they prohibit with aviations of the two rival countries to proceed to incursions starting from the sea, as that occurred before on several occasions (In 1999, India had thus cut down Breguet Atlantic Pakistani, undoubtedly on mission of information). "

Now let us look at the above explanation, This part contains a lot of wrong information. There is no clash on Kashmir during this time. I don't know from where these information crept up. Next is the emphasis of these fighters flying off the coast of India and Pakistan and nuetralizing the zone. I still did not understand why these aircrafts were not shot down. Nuetralizing the zone of what. Another wrong information provided here is the

they prohibit with aviations of the two rival countries to proceed to incursions starting from the sea, as that occurred before on several occasions (In 1999, India had thus cut down Breguet Atlantic Pakistani, undoubtedly on mission of information). "

The Atlantique incident was never over the sea and it was over the land. And the French or the American's cannot prevent such an incident since it happens on airspace over the Indian land (way off the 12 nm distance) and it is out of reach for U.S and France.

Chanakyathegreat 09:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The allegation lacks substance as it is devoid of basic common-sense. See excerpts from Pew Global Attitudes Project "The latest survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted among nearly 17,000 people in the United States and 15 other countries from April 20-May 31 in 2005, finds that America's image is strongest in India. Fully 71% in India express a positive opinion of the United States, compared with 54% three years ago." In the context of progressive improvement of United States' image in India over the past decades, it is evidently in the interest of neither of the parties (United States or India) to allow an operation wherein the smallest incident would reverse public opinion in India. The alleged flying 'joint combat air-patrols' with the French in/around Indian and Pakistanian waters would have done just that. The United States and India need one another as allies (especially in the light of current and future geopolitics). Additionally, what use of flying interdiction air-combat patrols if the Indians and Pakistanis can anycase fight one another if they so wish onland. There are thousands of kilometers of shared borders between India and Pakistan.Natobxl 12:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Both United States and India are well aware of each other's domestic perceptions. Opinion polls in both countries show that Americans favour Indians well and vice-versa. It is geopolitical suicide to become involved in something where there is nothing to be gained. What is in it for the US and France to play such a role ? Nothing. Do they stand to loose in case of an incident ? Yes, big time. Public Opinion in India and America "Indians’ view of the United States was more positive than the average of 33 nations asked that question, which was 40 percent positive, 41 percent negative. Indians’ view of the United States was the most favorable of all 17 countries surveyed except the United States itself. When Gallup asked this question (in America) in February 2006, 66 percent said they had a favorable view and just 23 percent said they had a negative view. Over the last five years, favorable views have grown. When Harris in August 2005 asked respondents to characterize India’s relations with the United States, a robust 62 percent rated India as friendly (42%) or a close ally (20%). Natobxl 12:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to my reply, let me correct it. In 1971 to the clinton period the relationship b/w India and U.S was it lowest ebb. Only recently it has started to progress and that's what the PEW survey states. Chanakyathegreat 18:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Atlantique incident The debated incident coincides with Operation Parakram launched after the attack on Indian Parliment. Now here is a report on the Indian Naval activity during this period.

Operation Parakram http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE6-1/Sakhuja.html

One of the most significant events during 2001-2002 was the enhanced deployment of the Indian Navy against Pakistan. The Indian Navy had deployed more than a dozen warships including the aircraft carrier INS Viraat in an offensive posture. The ships were on a high alert, fully armed and carrying out regular patrolling in the Arabian Sea. Five warships from the Eastern Fleet were also rushed to the Arabian Sea to contribute to the naval build up. The Navy was in a high state of alert in the shortest ever time frame. The high operational availability of its material assets i.e. ships, submarines, aircraft, naval support infrastructure was amply demonstrated.

Earlier, a similar deployment had forced the Pakistan Navy to stay close to its harbours and hastened the end of the eleven-week Kargil intrusion in 1999. The Indian Navy had forward deployed frigates, destroyers and submarines within striking range of Karachi harbour, through which more than 90% of Pakistan's trade, including oil supplies, are received. This display of force was aimed at challenging Pakistan to vacate the Indian territory in the Kargil sector in North India. The build up was also aimed at imposing a naval blockade of Karachi port.

The Indian fleet conducted offensive manoeuvres in the Arabian Sea resulting in the Pakistan naval fleet sticking very close to its coast. Pakistan had interpreted the initiatives to mean that the Indian Navy was preparing to enforce a quarantine or blockade of Karachi and prevent the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf. Naval planners in Islamabad have remained preoccupied with the Indian threat of a naval blockade of Pakistan's seaports. As a matter of fact, the threat of a naval blockade finds a prominent place in the Pakistan Navy's strategic thinking and tactical plans. This is primarily due to past experiences during the 1965 and 1971 India-Pakistan wars. Islamabad was not keen to open another front for itself against the Indian military and chose to withdraw from Kargil. Chanakyathegreat 09:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This incident as claimed by the French Newspaper has not happened. It is true that the U.S-French coalition was active in the region as part of their operations against the Taliban. French will never indulge in any military campagign that is outside the U.N mandate. In the Netmarine article itself it is mentioned that some missions are not carried out even though the U.S wanted it because the French feared loss of civilian life and .... Operation Parakram did happen and there was diplomacy from the world leaders to persuade the two nations to avoid any confrontation, but there was no military angle to it, since it is impossible. Operation Parakram

Chanakyathegreat 10:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

We are starting to sound like a political blog with claims and counter-claims. What a pity especially if our common interest is to make Wikipedia a global 'encyclopedia'. We can go on like this forever and only (1) waste our time (2) do less constructive contribution and (3) the 'stalemate' situation will only ensure that the page remains blocked. My intention is not to try to get into an argument of hypothesis (what may have happened, why, etc.,). The case for deletion of the section is best argued from the Wikipedia content submissions policy guidelines that I have outlined and refered to repeatedly. This is all that matters to the mediators. They are not interested in the hypothesis and will only review the facts for evidence. As per Wikipedia rules & guidelines, every editing conflict has to follow an escalation path as described in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. So, we will let outside independant monitors to review the data/info and provide the required illumination if we cannot de-escalate the situation' through consensus by ourselves. Natobxl 11:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To Chankya and Nat: again that's original research. Here we have you two claiming this could not possibly have happened, but you're doing this under your auspices and your prejudices. None of you have provided a reliable source that specifically says this event could not or did not happen. No one is interested in your personal theories, so please keep them away from here.

Furthermore, this is not "exceptional" material. Nothing that's so completely out of line is being proposed here. It's very likely that this did happen, given Franco-American naval and aerial cooperation in the region during that time.UberCryxic 12:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Research, i suspect. The source. These are not personal theories. These are questions that you have to answer to say that the said incident has indeed happened. If you cannot provide answer to many questions raised by me, then how can the news report seems to be correct. The report in the newspaper is just a paragraph with some tall claims.

The Franco-US co-operation is for Afghanistan supported by the whole world (including U.N) and not to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.

Chanakyathegreat 18:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There are 3 persons (BillCJ, Chanakyathegreat and myself) who share the common opinion that Wikipedia rules must be followed. All that we hear from you is 'original research' or 'irrelevant'. You refrain each time to play by Wikipedia's general rules and go on to define your own rules and rule application framework. We will continue to ask you bring substance to your case.Natobxl 13:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
"It's very likely that this did happen" is not the threshold for Wikipedia in determining reliability of information. Verifiability from multiple, independent, reliable sources is Wiki policy. As long as there is a reasonable question of its reliability, it should not go in. It's obvious we aren't going to agree on this point, so we should request mediation from Wiki. If this has not been done, we need to do it. -BillCJ 14:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
"Original research" applies to articles, not to posts. We are not suggestiong we write a paragraph telling why this event could not have happened.
It does not matter how long the information was in the article, or how many times it was removed, or by whom. If it cannot be reliably verified, it does not belong. You are finding some sources; that's great. When you have several credible, independent, reliable sources lined up, then let's talk. Until that happens, the information should not go in. Period!!!! (Full-stop!!!!) That's Wikipedia's policy. -BillCJ 14:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's up here?

Hey, I was running up the member's talk pages and guess what I come up with ? Some kind of 'fishy' business. Just read on and figure out for yourselves what is going on in the back-ground.

Look to Kirill Lokshin talk page :

What exactly is happening here ? Fabrication of info to suit required results ? I'm thinking of calling in some Wiki folks to look into this. Natobxl 04:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

We're planning world domination if you must know. I did the same thing you did: requested help from another Wikipedia member.: Kirill became involved in the article's discussion and found about the JED article, which I'm citing from now (see above). Why is this a problem in any way?UberCryxic 04:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any collusion to fix/falsify material here. They are just talking. I don't see that the whole thing needed to be repeated here tho; just a link to the page would have sufficed. --BillCJ 05:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Guess that I'm starting to see red where UberCryxic is concerned. Time to cool down. Natobxl 05:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside opinion on Indian Ocean role

It is unfortunate that for such an important claim the only source we have is source x saying source y said..... However as written as of 15:30 26 October 2006 I don't have a real problem with the text:

It was reported by the French daily newspaper Liberation[citation needed], that from 9 June–19 June 2002, the Charles De Gaulle and her group carried out interposition missions to ease the tensions between India and Pakistan during the Kargil war and Rafales patrolled the area (Northern Arabian sea) armed with live air-air munitions, with the aim of preventing any untoward incident[2] There are no known official accounts from government sources to authenticate these claims.

Does it fall short on verifiabilty? At present yes. Could a reader mistake this for verified fact? No, given the presence of the "disputed section" tag, "citation needed" tag and the final sentence. Might I suggest a way forward is to leave it the way it is and for the four users involved to use their energies to find a direct cite from Liberation rather than going round in circles on this page. Note: direct contact would be the best/possibly only way. Mark83 14:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberation article found

I have found the elusive Liberation article, however not all of it can be accessed. Go here and scroll down to #9, which says (for the part that they allow you to read for free):

Armés de missiles air air, les Rafale ont assuré, plusieurs fois par jour, des patrouilles de deux heures, en collaboration avec les F - 14 et F - 18 de l'US Navy, présents dans la région. Du 9 au 19 juin, le groupe aéronaval français s'est interposé entre l'Inde et le Pakistan, alors en plein...

It basically corroborates what other sources have been saying.UberCryxic 15:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw the title and subtitles are:

La France entre Inde et Pakistan En juin, des Rafale ont «neutralisé» leur frontière en mer.

"France between India and Pakistan. In June, Rafales neutralized their seashores (or borders or frontiers)."UberCryxic 15:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them. (Says Wikipedia)Natobxl 17:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Man, Nuetralizing are all tall claim. You know the meaning of nuetralizing. It is attack and open war. Chanakyathegreat 17:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

It was reported by the French daily newspaper Liberation [1] that from 9 June–19 June 2002, the Charles De Gaulle and her group carried out "interposition missions" to ease the tensions between India and Pakistan during the Kargil war and Rafales patrolled the area (Northern Arabian sea). There are no known official accounts from government sources to authenticate these claims.

I've removed the piece about live air to air missiles - not verifiable in free section of article. I've also removed repitition. Please discuss any changes here. Mark83 16:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

O.K, this is O.K to place info stating that there is a claim by the French newspaper and there is no official accounts from official sources to authenticate this claim. Kargil war need to be replaced with Operation Parakram. Chanakyathegreat 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Kargil War was in 1999. the interpostion mission was to prevenet tensions as during the Kargil War. Here is my suggested Version (feel free to adapt/edit/borrow):
Between 9 June–19 June 2002, armed Rafale fighters from the Charles De Gaulle were reported to have flown "interposition" patrols over the Northern Arabian sea near the India-[[Pakistan border.[2] These patrols were intended to prevent a repeat of the Atlantique Incident.
-BillCJ 18:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with the above version by Mark, with the change to Operation Parakram, as Chanakya pointed out. The version by Bill is also suitable.UberCryxic 23:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

BillCJ, there is a mistake. I made the first mistake by adding Kargil to the article thinking that it was during the Kargil war. Later realised that it was during operation Parakram, that's the time that coincides with it and hence I think the first part is suitable without the during the Kargil war line. And the Atlantique incident is a totally different issue altogether and it happened during the Kargil war and not during operation Parakram. I had added a lot of explantions. I think there is no need of further explanation from me. The corrected part of Mark's edition will be

It was reported by the French daily newspaper Liberation [3] that from 9 June–19 June 2002, the Charles De Gaulle and her group carried out "interposition missions" to ease the tensions between India and Pakistan and Rafales patrolled the area (Northern Arabian sea). There are no known official accounts from government sources to authenticate these claims.

Thanks.

Chanakyathegreat 08:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case for the non-inclusion of the section

Without in any manner opposing the ongoing discussion and text proposals, let me re-state the reasons why I believe that we should keep this section on 'stand-by mode' till firm and multiple credible sources of evidence.

  1. Especially when it comes to recent events in the political sphere, we must double check the facts. Wikipedia as an online excyclopedia is seen by millions of persons everyday. It has become a source of quality info. People, politicians and academics quote freely from articles on the site.
  2. An allegation such as this is serious. Reprinting (even with disclaimers) these missions without taking all the recommended Wikipedia precautions on verification of subject matter on historical and political matters is dangerous. It has the potential to seriously impact relations and public opinion and perception.
  3. This kind of inclusion in a matter with serious diplomatic implications opens the flood-gates for all other Wiki submissions based on info carried by the media.
  4. Imagine if contributors decided to systematically include all of "Al Jazeera" claims onto Wikipedia. Remember, media organisations like "Al Jazeera" or "Xinhua" are viewed as a reliable media organisation by millions of persons ... but what about the quality of the info and the bias.
  5. In future similar circumstances, we'd be left with no alternative but accept the submissions as we bent the rules in the first place
  6. We'd also have all kinds of superfluous info on articles pages. Next we might see someone create a section for the first time every and any kind of new equipment is brought onboard.

Am for a unbiased Wikipedia where everyone plays by the established rules and guidelines. Only this will ensure quality info on Wikipedia. Am wholly supportive of all efforts to improve this global encyclopedia. Natobxl 22:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Here we are dealing with Asia. A region which has already started re-defining geopolitical markings. We better watch-out on what is published by the media. There is a specific Wikipedia warning in the guiding principles for content inclusion to this effect. The last time the US Fleet ventured into the Bay of Bengal at the height of the Cold War, the resulting impact on the Indian public opinion was dramatic. India-American relationships went into a freeze for a few decades. We need to be responsible in what we clear for publishing. Here is a situation where we should avoid risks by remaining neutral and playing it safe. If there are multiple and verified info, please note that I will whole-heartedly support that this very content make it to the articles page.

Natobxl 22:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It is best if we keep in mind that this article, or event, makes no political statement at all. As I said, neither India, Pakistan, France, or the United States are being attacked here (politically) in any way. This is just a very crucial military event, from the perspective of the CDG, that there is much evidence to believe actually happened. Let's hope that alarmism doesn't cloud, oversimplify, or exaggerate what happened here: some groups of American and French fighters basically conducted reconaissance operations near the India-Pakistan border. This is not difficult to believe, nor would its occurrence disrupt relations between these countries. It's not like there was any flagrant violation of air space or anything. No shots were fired. But, again, it is important because it marks the combat debut of the Rafale, which is an integral component of the CDG.UberCryxic 23:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My view is that there are extablished Wikipedia rules to this effect. There is obviously a reason why Wikipedia publishes rules and recommendations. This is not just any other event. We are not talking of installing a catapult or the first carrier landing. Those events have no political impact. However, conducting armed air-combat patrols is serious matter. Also, if you check correctly we have seen only a partial information source. All other publications are unavailable and more importantly they have the same originating point. Remember that unknown free-press websites, blogs and open content submission websites are not recommended as reliable sources of info by Wikipedia itself. Natobxl 23:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, we still need a few more credible, reliable sources. The Hindu reports what was in Liberation, which we now have a free excerpt from. I believe JED Journal report has also been mentioned. If this is a peer-reviewable journal, or some kind of official source, it would be acceptable also. From this point on, it would probably best to concentrate on finding more independent sources. Once these are lined up, we can review the issue, and make a decision on including it then.
In the meantime, if we can agree to remove the disputed paragraph for the time being, we can apply to have "Protection" removed. Otherwise, admin will not remove Protection, and formal Arbitration will have to occur. --BillCJ 23:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I fully support the motion proposed by BillCJ. I too am keen to see the article page released BUT without the content. We can continue to discuss and 'hold' that section here on the discussion page till multiple reliable verifyable information sources are found.Natobxl 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Given that Mark, an administrator, has ruled on the issue (see below), I will accept his actions and recommendations, until fruther opinons can be obtained. I hope sufficient, reliable multiple sources can be found in the meantime. --BillCJ 23:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Bill, I also agree with your recommendations. That's why I went down and tracked a source that cited directly out of that JED article, which is independent and more than reputable. The JED article basically corroborates what is written in the Liberation.UberCryxic 23:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically, at this point it is almost indisputable that this event did, in fact, happen.UberCryxic 23:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The way forward

OK. The best way forward I think is to include the section that was agreed above,

Between 9 June–19 June 2002, armed Rafale fighters from the Charles De Gaulle were reported to have flown "interposition" patrols over the Northern Arabian sea near the India-[[Pakistan border.[4] These patrols were intended to prevent a repeat of the Atlantique Incident.

However, I'm not going to ignore Natobxl's concerns, so I'm leaving the dispute section tag. Since everybody seems to have calmed down a bit and since everybody has the best interests of the article at heart I've unprotected the page, so please all concerned, don't make me look like an idiot - no edit warring! Discuss. And Natobxl, I'm not 100% sure that your arguments aren't well justified, if you can find a "fourth" opinion I would not be offended, in fact I would welcome it. Thanks Mark83 23:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you Mark83 probably know more users or atleast where/how to find them, why don't you suggest and gather some unbiased persons to come here and give their opinions ? I'm certain that way that we can move-on in a consensual manner.Natobxl 23:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, fair enough. I'll do my best. Mark83 23:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we as I suggested 'hold' the content here till it is verified ? In fact, Wikipedia points out that only verified content makes it to the articles page. I think that it is only fair to play by the established rules. What do you think ?Natobxl 23:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The content is verified, both by an independent military publication and by a newspaper article.UberCryxic 23:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh-uh here we go again. Mark, can you please give me your opinion if the content in your view is 'verified' as things stand? I have not seen the actual JED article. Have I missed that ?Natobxl 23:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Please folks, don't make me nervous about my decision. Is it verified? Barely. However the reason I left the "disputed section" tag is because it's less than ideal. I missed the JED article too! But I don't no if it's that authoratitive. I said I'd try to get a "fourth" opinion, please give me a chance to get such an opinion. Mark83 23:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: the JED is a very authoritative publication, and this is not just me talking. The central question may now be: is the JED article enough to remove the disputed tag? Opinions?UberCryxic 00:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That is an excellent question. What should happen, if say, two authoritative and notable publications give a defined course of events and yet they are not 'authoritative? The arguement that has gone on seems to hinge on two points
  1. That all the sites basically from from a source that may be disreputible (NETMARINE)
  2. That until another source verifying this that does NOT cite NETMARINE can be found, the section is in dispute, and since we avoid angry mastodons we keep it disputed or remove it as not really notable....

...but it *is* notable, and I will say that the tone of the discussion so far is good, but I reiterate something already said : Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues.

The JED article, added to the piece by NETMARINE (I'm ignoring the Hindu here) seems to be enough to say , that, um, something happened. That , in and of itself, does not make the dispute go away because we *still* can't verify it. I would suggest something along the lines of what BillCJ said along with cites of both articles, because that JED article is less than 'firm'. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 01:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that the JED article has no relation to Netmarine. In fact, in the context of this debate, netmarine has been extensively marginalized; I haven't mentioned it lately at all. The JED article and the two newspaper reports are what I think make this event verifiable. Netmarine isn't relevant at all in this context, and right now no one is claiming that it is.UberCryxic 01:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

For the benefit of In ur base, killing ur dorfs
  1. From what I can see we have basically 7 'publications' : "NetMarine" & "The Hindu" (sourcing from "Liberation"), the "Liberation" article itself, Pakistani Defense Forum, Aspire Free Press Site & Fighter-Planes Forum Forums (all 3 citing from an elusive JED document) and the JED publication itself.
  2. In a nutshell there are basically 2 'original sources' : "Liberation" (only partial content available) and "JED" (not available).
  3. We are discussing this matter from 3 perspectives : (1) content published by a reputed information source for REPUTED MEDIA VERIFICATION (2) more importantly the actual authenticity of the content through EVENT VERIFIABILITY given the historic and political nature of the 'exceptional event' and (3) whether allegations where we possess only MEDIA VERIFICATION can make it to the article page.Natobxl

02:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Also the Hindu article. Once again though, the fundamental assumption that the material is somehow 'exceptional' needs serious re-examination. There is little, if anything, out of the ordinary being claimed here.UberCryxic 02:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

An event of this magnitude (we are talking of armed joint air-interdiction missions does have geopolitical consequences. It therefore has historical and political bearings.Natobxl 02:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually this was simply a reconaissance operation, characterized by many sources as an unofficial training exercise. It did not have the significance that you are assigning to it now. Within the world of the Rafale and the CDG it was a very important moment, which is why it is being mentioned in this article, but as for its geopolitical consequences....those were probably minor, if not completely non-existent. As far as I'm aware, Franco-Indian relations are terrific (France and India still regularly conduct the Varuna naval exercises). This event has yielded no bad blood on any front.UberCryxic 02:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think "reconaissance" and "interposition" were the same thing, but that's a very minor point. We do disagree on the significance of including the event in the article, but I can see how you consider it important. As to seeing the text of the JED article, I couldn't make a judgment on whether I would accept it before seeing it. We won't know the total context of the story until we see it. After seeing, we could say we have two original sources, unless JED quotes from Liberation. I'd still like to see if we could come up with a "main-stream" (I don't mean just American/British here) source that did its own research on the story. -BillCJ 02:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is this strange insinuation on Nat's part that the JED article is elusive or not available. This claim is astonishing as all that's really needed to see otherwise is a google search. Here is the article, though not the full version (again, you need to pay for that). The article does exist....the only troubling part is that we can't access the section that talks about this event. UberCryxic 02:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We MUST see the actual JED article in full to see what it says. But it states something else that what you just said and from where the VERACITIY of the document comes into question : "According to French executives, some unofficial training engagements have already taken place between Rafales and US Navy F/A-18s. On June 9, 2002, Rafale Ms of the French Navy operating from the Charles de Gaulle participated in a joint patrol with American fighters. Although the assignment was for reconnaissance over the tense India-Pakistan border and no shots were fired, it marked the official combat debut of the aircraft (see "It Takes Two to Interoperate,"JED , August 2002)."

  1. "Rafale Ms of the French Navy operating from the Charles de Gaulle participated in a joint patrol with American fighters" : So why no US Navy or US DoD statements anywhere ?
  2. "Although the assignment was for reconnaissance over the tense India-Pakistan border" : How come Indians & Pakistanis did not see/know about anything ? For your info, India is capable of tracking U2s and Carrier Flotillas through space and land based assets.
  3. "some unofficial training engagements" : Does this mean that there were local initiatives without the US & French HQs in Paris and Washington and their political masters being aware of this ? Military does not operate without political OKAYS.
  4. "reconnaissance OVER the tense India-Pakistan border" : Note the word "OVER"? That defenitely makes this a major geopolitical event as this explicitely implies that they were alongside Indian airspace WITHOUT any mandate. Totally impossible !!!! UN did not give any mandate and India did not give any approval for patrols OVER it's border. If this had (hypothesis) happened indeed, it is of immense political significance for India. Tantamounts to violation of airspace.
  5. I'd be surprised if Chirac learnt of this 'missions' AFTER they already took place. Heads would roll.

To start with just these 'claims' lead me to want to see how the article was written and by whom and with what authoritive information sources. With this we can try to decide on the veracity of the content as recommended in the Wikipedia guidelines for content verification (generally but also specifically on historic and political topics). Natobxl 02:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hindu article is enough to make the information verifiable, and the Liberation report makes it that much better. Just recently there was a heavy focus on your part towards these two while now there is a sudden switch of attention to the JED. The JED is important, but since the Liberation article was the first - and it is reliable and claims what is stated in the article - its main value should be just to settle the issue. Once again, your above claims border on original research and are unhelpful.UberCryxic 02:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
We (and specifically myself) are not switching sources. We need to reviews ALL sources. Right now we have NOT A SINGLE COMPLETE SOURCE. So, when we have them, we'll regather all our points and weigh each source/publication against Wiki rules. Right now we are just making comments as they come.Natobxl 03:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hindu article is a complete source, as is the website that cites the JED article. I'm not sure why this has become relevant only now, however. Frankly the only thing that matters is the material that we can find in whatever source exists. Even though it gives little overall, the Liberation article yields enough clues to solve the puzzle in a satisfactory manner.UberCryxic 03:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

On a personal side, I wouldn't mind seeing the JED material just for curiosity's sake. I am not in a position to purchase it myself, or I would. --BillCJ 02:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, however, curiosity is not the only thing at stake.UberCryxic 02:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's unfortunate I'm curious? I meant I was curious to see what the whole article said. I enjoy reading material on military operations, especially involving two or more countries. But I don't see how my comment desevered any retort like that. -BillCJ 02:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh my comments were not meant to be offensive. I was just implying that, beyond curiosity, there is the matter of how this article will look like one, two, or three weeks in the future. I apologize if I appeared rude.UberCryxic 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. And I apologize for taking offense so quickly. -BillCJ 03:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis on the relevant sources

Here is where stand on this front:

The Hindu article: `French jets patrolled Indo-Pak. coastline'

Talks about what the Liberation reported, which is.....

this. If you scroll to #9 you'll find the Liberation reports about the activities of French and American fighters.

And the award for best source goes to....

this: Cites directly from the August 2002 JED article and states the following:

According to French executives, some unofficial training engagements have already taken place between Rafales and US Navy F/A-18s. On June 9, 2002, Rafale Ms of the French Navy operating from the Charles de Gaulle participated in a joint patrol with American fighters. Although the assignment was for reconnaissance over the tense India-Pakistan border and no shots were fired, it marked the official combat debut of the aircraft (see "It Takes Two to Interoperate,"JED , August 2002).

What about this situation seems unsatisfactory?UberCryxic 23:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  1. Remember that unknown free-press websites, blogs and open content submission websites are not recommended as reliable sources of info by Wikipedia itself. Therefore, Pakistani Defense Forum Aspire Free Press Site Fighter-Planes does not qualify.Natobxl
  2. "It Takes Two to Interoperate,"JED , August 2002" Where is the original full text of the article. Have not seen it.Natobxl

JED has a subscription service. It costs $5 dollar to access the article. I am willing to pay that, but I also want to know if that will quell this dispute....cuz I don't feel like paying for a 4-year old article and getting no use out of it.UberCryxic 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What are we getting into ? Business negotiations ??? Ãre you trying to cut a deal ??? Geezzzzz man !!! We weigh things in the light of their factual and verified/reliable content and not in terms of dollars or euros.Natobxl 00:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm cutting a business deal because I am the only one making a financial transaction. I don't quite see what you're losing in that sense. But hopefully you can understand my concerns without being pejorative: I do not want to purchase this article, find out that it says what we all know it says, and then still be here fighting endlessly. That's a normal human instinct and hopefully you can appreciate it.UberCryxic 00:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You are out here asking me to drop my concerns because you are going to pay some dollars ! Man, I am surprised that you are even defending that line. So much for Wikipedia consensus! Frankly I find this insulting. And,sorry no, I cannot understand your concerns in this specific context.Natobxl 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
These are less than constructive comments. I've said I'll try and get a "fourth" opinion, can we all hold back until I do? Mark83 00:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well we must be clear that I am not really requesting that you drop your concerns. My only intention in proposing this is to find out how much stake people put in the JED article. If not much, then it really does not make sense for me to pay and get it. If, on the other hand, it seems to be respected, then it is worth getting because it can solve the dispute. That is really as far this goes.UberCryxic 00:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

For other user's benefit - I've said to UberCryxic that I am not happy advising him to spend his own money. I'll say it again, I'm trying to get another opinion. In the interim I think I've found the best compromise. The disputed information is in the article in an agreed form and there are clear disputed section warnings anyway. Everybody be patient, many thanks Mark83 00:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It's largely an irrelevant point anyways. Even if UberCryxic did pay for the article—doing so had occurred to me as well, actually—it would be a copyright violation to distribute the full text. So there's no real way that a third party could see it, other than visiting a library that has a subscription to the JED. Kirill Lokshin 01:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You are right. We need to get an opinion (ideally multiple opinions) from community recognized contributors. This content inclusion/retention/deletion case will be a kind of 'class action'. Others will certainly use the manner in which this debate plays out to defend content submissions.Natobxl 00:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I've been following this on my watch page, surprised me that this article has created so much trouble. First, I don't care either way if the information is included in the article. The sources, for the most part, are reliable. The Liberation article is indeed reliable. The paragraph is interesting information and I think it has a right to be in the article. The dispute tag is a bit much, and not entirely necessary. The information has been verified, just it seems it's a matter of who wants what in the article. My 2¢. --MPD01605 (T / C) 01:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see what's so extraordinary about the statement that we need a source beyond the Hindu article, actually; the general gist of these events can be sourced reliably enough from a mainstream newspaper, I think. The oblique mentions of the JED article are merely icing on the cake; we can certainly include it as a reference—perhaps even quote it—once someone's found a copy, but we don't really need it from a straighforward sourcing standpoint. Kirill Lokshin 01:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. As far as the Hindu article is concerned, it satisfies the verifiability criteria on its own.UberCryxic 03:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin a UberCryxic Kindly refer back for past posts where-in we explained why we were not satisfied with the HINDU, JED,LIBERATION,... articles/publications/etc., At different stages of this discussion we stated out our concerns on each of these sources/publications. Am not going to repeat myself over and over again.Natobxl 03:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I did. I concluded that your assertions were original research, so I decided to (mostly) safely ignore them. The content in the Hindu article are far more relevant than anything you can concoct on why this event did not happen. The others even more so.UberCryxic 03:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is a condescending statement to make. (I'll refrain from reacting to this) Natobxl 03:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I don't want to incite ill-feelings, but I also don't want to create false impressions. I believe I told you long ago that I considered your reasons for this not happening original research, which, essentially, they are.UberCryxic 03:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Each of the newspaper articles in question is a reliable source (and, in the case of the Hindu, one you have available in its entirety). Your original theories as to why this did or did not happen have no bearing on the content of the article; we report what reliable sources have published, which happens to be this story (improbable as it might seem to you). Your objections are thus largely without merit. Kirill Lokshin 03:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
That is YOUR point of view. Is that to say that you have the final word ? (Just a question)Natobxl 03:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And my point of view too. I think you'll find yourself on shaky ground if you deny the essence of your assertions, which basically fall under the category of original research, at least Wikipedia defines it, which is what matters in the end.UberCryxic 03:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JED article

Ok, here's the relevant section from the JED article:

It is fitting for the oft-delayed development of the Rafale fighter that the aircraft literally missed the boat. It was not until February 14, after 70 days at sea, that five Rafale Fl air-combat naval versions landed on the deck of the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. On March 9, two more came aboard, joining the 16 modernized Super Etendards that they are designed to eventually replace.

The Ministry of Defense curbed enthusiasts by pointing out the squadron was not certified for combat and that the Etendards were performing all close-air-support and carrier-based reconnaissance missions. Yet on returning to home port July 4, the de Gaulle's commander, Captain Richard Laborde, announced that on June 9 the Rafales, armed with Magic 2 air-to-air missiles, set off on a joint patrol with American fighters. He termed it, precisely, a combat mission, although the assignment was for reconnaissance over the tense India-Pakistan border.

(emphasis mine). Given that the JED is a fairly authoritative source, I hope this will dispel any remaining concerns over the issue. Kirill Lokshin 03:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I kindly ask you to post us the link to the site. I'd like to see the article in it's original context. I don't want to start firing off my comments prior to that.Natobxl 03:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
As we mentioned right along, show us your FULL info sources. Then we can see what/how to proceed. But, going blindly was/is not possible.Natobxl 04:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If you're willing to pony up the $5—as I did—you can get a copy here. Alternately, you can go down to the nearest library that has the JED on file. Kirill Lokshin 04:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not too sure on this, but I don't think a link can be provided that takes you to that section because it is a subscription article. That's why Kirill was just quoting out of the article, at least that's my guess.UberCryxic 04:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. If I were to put the entire article up, it'd be a copyvio. Kirill Lokshin 04:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This is like claiming that you have proof but can't show it. So, you gain concent without showing sources ? Does that not contradict a Wikipedia guideline for content sourcing ?Natobxl 04:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I have provided the source—in copious detail—and it's not one that you cannot locate yourself, should you be willing to spend the time; I am under no obligation to send you a copy personally. (What would you do if the source had been an actual printed book?) Or are you insinuating that I'm lying about what the article says? Kirill Lokshin 04:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Insinuating ? In one word NO.
I've googled for all kinds of keywords and have no link anywhere to this content you are mentioning. Can you tell me where you got it ? Thanks Natobxl 04:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It's an article in the JED; it's usually printed on paper. I'm not surprised that you couldn't find it; if it were available online, they wouldn't be able to get away with charging for a copy! Kirill Lokshin 04:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nat, if you would like to buy a copy of the article, you can go here.UberCryxic 04:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you have it, pass me the pwd and I'll take a look. Else, e-mail us the content and we'll review it along the lines that we said we wanted to do. Remember that the burden of proof rests with on your side. We are just playing by wikipedia's rules for content submission and retention. Also, remember, wikipedia also has rules on verification of the authenticity of content/event/info when it comes to exceptional events.Natobxl 04:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You're not going to get very far with asking me to do something illegal. Kirill Lokshin 04:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

See I believe you've got it wrong though. The burden of proof rests with you, mainly because you were the one who initiated what is now turning into something like a witch hunt. Either way, I think the event has now been corroborated well enough.UberCryxic 04:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion is obviously going nowhere. I think an RFC would be in order, as the three of us are likely to keep talking in circles otherwise. Kirill Lokshin 04:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I've listed this article on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics; hopefully more uninvolved editors will comment on this issue. Kirill Lokshin 04:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
"The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."(says Wikipedia ... not me)Natobxl 04:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Right and that has been done. What exactly is the problem here? But it is a mistake to think that this excuses you from any obligations or "burdens," if you will. You still have to rationally show why you want this removed; the policy does not give blank checks to remove anything people want.UberCryxic 04:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This is definitely what we have been ~doing for all along. We do agree (as we have demonstrated) to respectfully be in accordance with Wikipedia principles and guidelines.Natobxl 04:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You guys are running away from all the principles of Wikipedia:Verifiability. This was something we had mentioned right along. Natobxl 04:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The source has been provided:

Brosky, John. "It takes two to interoperate." Journal of Electronic Defense. (1 August 2002).

We are under no obligation to give you a copy of the source; you can get one yourself, if you don't trust my transcription. Kirill Lokshin 04:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, since you chaps obviously carry more weight ... and certainly make all efforts to show that your decisions are final, I guess that you have your version of CONSENSUS. So much for Wikipedia guiding principles.Natobxl 04:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As it is holiday period in Europe over the next weeks I will check my mails every alternate day (atleast). However, I definitely will reply comprehensively to all questions adressed to me by independent arbitrators and/or observers. Thank you all.Natobxl 04:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

?? What just happened?UberCryxic 04:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well you see I've a job and family. So, I need to go to work today ... and my family is on vacation for 10 days. So, I cannot be at my computer all the time on a ski slope ;-)
Nat, I have seen the site where the article can be purchased, and it has the excerpts posted earlier. If you still question the full content of the JED article, you'll have to purchase it--that's the only legal way to do it.
U-Cry, we now have two sources, both French, which basiacally quote the captain of the CDG. As the article stated that US Navy planes were involved, I would think we could find some record of that somewhere. I still feel we need one or two more sources independent sources to count as "multiple" sources, as I have stated earlier. --BillCJ 04:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
U-Cry, you stated the following:
"See I believe you've got it wrong though. The burden of proof rests with you, mainly because you were the one who initiated what is now turning into something like a witch hunt."
We need to get an official decision from a Wiki arbitrator on that point. As has been quoted many times here, the one supporting the material has to prove its verifiability, not the one contesting it. If you continue to missunderstand this important part of Wiki Policy, you will have more conflicts with other editors. Who deleted what, when, is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
Now, you have gone a long way towards verifying the disputed information. But I have stated all along you need multiple, independent sources. We are getting closer, but we're not there yet in my reading of Policy. -BillCJ 05:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
BillCJ I believe there are 2 'originating publications' ("Liberation" in French) and "JED" (in english). I've only seen what has been posted on the discussion page. Nothing else. If you saw a second french article (I think it might be the NetMarine article which is actually derived from Liberation ... just like the Hindu article) So long as we have partial articles we cannot know if it is the same journalist who wrote both articles. Also, we are yet to see multiple independant sources of info that we've claimed all along. Finally, the 2 observers did recognise our concerns and that they needed to be addressed.Natobxl 05:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Umm, the two articles have different authors; we happen to know the authors of both, so that much is trivial. There's two entirely independent sources: the JED and the Liberations/Hindu/whatever. Kirill Lokshin 05:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
(Repeat) I have no exhaustive view of the articles in question. So, I am not going to comment on something I have not seen and cannot see. If you have 2 independant sources, good for you. We'll see if one is just quoting the other or where the info originates, the circumstances, the credibility and so forth. All this in accordance with Wikipedia policies. So, can you start sharing your info with us ? Why not here than elsewhere later ? Natobxl 05:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What part of "I'm not going to violate JED's copyright" is unclear? I've given the full publication information for the article in question; if you want to read the full text, you can go to a library. Kirill Lokshin 05:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Please I am not suggesting that you do this. I thought that you could e-mail this info to us. Also, your JED is totally unknown here in Europe! I can't get it at a local library. That is why I am asking you for the info.Natobxl 05:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
According to this tool, it's available in several European libraries; whether any of those is near you, I can't say. Kirill Lokshin 05:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Tough luck for Europeans : In Europe it is found in Germany at Heidelburg (US DoD Library) which is off limits to civilians and in the UK at Glasgow for which I need fly 2 hours to get there. No libraries in France, Belgium & Switzerland have this publication.Natobxl 11:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

With reference to the JED article : "The Ministry of Defense curbed enthusiasts by pointing out the squadron was not certified for combat and that the Etendards were performing all close-air-support and carrier-based reconnaissance missions. Yet on returning to home port July 4, the de Gaulle's commander, Captain Richard Laborde, announced that on June 9 the Rafales, armed with Magic 2 air-to-air missiles, set off on a joint patrol with American fighters. He termed it, precisely, a combat mission, although the assignment was for reconnaissance over the tense India-Pakistan border." Here are some comments :

  1. "The Ministry of Defense curbed enthusiasts by pointing out the squadron was not certified for combat and that the Etendards were performing all close-air-support and carrier-based reconnaissance missions" : So, the article pointedly states that the rafale CANNOT be used in theatres of operation on 'combat' roles.
  2. "Yet on returning to home port July 4, the de Gaulle's commander, Captain Richard Laborde, announced that on June 9 the Rafales, armed with Magic 2 air-to-air missiles, set off on a joint patrol with American fighters." To whom were the comments made ? How is it possible that in a Western Army a military commander takes an initiative WITHOUT political and bureaucratic approval ?
  3. "He termed it, precisely, a combat mission, although the assignment was for reconnaissance over the tense India-Pakistan border." Same comment as done earlier with the "LIBERATION" article. If the armed joint air-combat patrol missions were OVER Indian borders, this is a serious breach of sovereignty with important political and historical implications.

All these points want me to defend the Wikipedia recommendation that : "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues." (Even 2 independant observers Mark83 and In ur base, killing ur dorfs concurred that there is a valid reason to pursue the concerns and reservations expressed by the group). The info is contradictory : military official says something totally different from Government sources AND there is not a single official mention ANYWHERE of these missions from US or French side. Extraordinary claims containing fundamental contradictions need special attention. Natobxl 10:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Authority of underlying sources : Take a look at the sources your source is using. If the original sources are poor, the quality of the information is not likely to be improved by laundering through a putatively reliable source. (quoted from Wikipedia:Reliable sources)

Wikipedia in no uncertain terms allows for questioning the veracity of underlying sources. Therefore, asking questions and circumstantial evidence cannot be brushed aside as we've seen repeatedly. So, before you cry original research and irrelevant check the Wikipedia rules.Natobxl 12:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires on all historical and political submissions, we are going to look adequately into the veracity of these happenings. Just because someone says so, it does not necessarily have to have happened. I really would like to have any US DoD official document or a French DoD document. As primary actors there really has to be something somewhere especially with matters of such importance.Natobxl 05:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nat, you can't ask a person to violate copyrights. You'll have to get the article yourself if you can't take their word for it. I've seen the excerpts, and what Kirill has quoted seems consistent. I'm not contesting it. I would like to see US DoD or French Mod sources also. Either would be good; having both would satisfy the multiple credible sources policy. -BillCJ 05:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I clarify, I thought that e-mailing the content is OK. In no way was I asking for a WWW post.Natobxl 05:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that ANY credible, reliable & authenticated Government owned document will cease the discussion ASAP. I myself have been Googling like crazy for any info on this. Natobxl 05:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, we've got the captain's name in the excerpt above. All things considered, I somehow doubt that the French Navy was issuing press releases about this; from the passage, it seems that this was an off-the-cuff statement by Laborde, not an announcement from the normal Navy press channels. Kirill Lokshin 05:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
In my (humble) opinion, where political and historical topics are concerned, "off the cuff remarks" (even in normal circumstances) do not make it into an encyclopedia. Can you imagine ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA containing 'off the cuff remarks' ? Wikipedia offers guidelines for 'controversial' content especially in areas of politics, society and history. At this point, I thinks it again serves well to re-read what Wikipedia stands for. It is definitely more than a simple content repository. It is a global 'encyclopedia'.Natobxl 09:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
(For all your info) I contacted the French defense ministry yesterday by e-mail via their website asking about this. I am yet to get a reply. But, if I get one, definitely I'll post it for everyone to see. If there are other ideas of contacts, let me know. I can write in French to ask for info.Natobxl 06:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia squarely places the burden of proof and authentication upon content editors and contributors in all historical and political submissions especially in matters that generate controversy. In the concerns raised right from the start, this was high up on th list for a few of us. In fact, Wikipedia specifically mentions that just because someone says so, it does not necessarily have to have happened. The info is to be checked. I really would like to have any US DoD official document or a French DoD document. As primary actors there really has to be something somewhere especially with matters of such importance.Natobxl 05:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(repost) Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence (quoted from Wikipedia:Reliable sources) :

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

  1. Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
  2. Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
  3. Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
  4. Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues. Natobxl 10:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(repost) Wikipedia Reliability

Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them. Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Typically peer reviewed publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next. Government publications are often reliable, but governments vary widely in their level of reliability, and often have their own interests which will explicitly allow for withholding of information, or even outright deception of the public. Below this are sources which, while not tangible, can be providers of reliable information in some cases, for example websites associated with reliable publishers.

  1. With any source, multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability, if several sources have independently checked a fact or assertion, then it is more reliable than one which is not checked.
  2. Sources where there are multiple steps to publication, such as fact checking and editorial oversight, are more reliable, other things being equal, than those without these procedures.

Natobxl 10:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If Laborde really made the claim - and there is not reason to suspect otherwise - then it was not an extraordinary one at all. Furthermore, he's the commander of the de Gaulle; I think he'd know better than anyone what happened here.UberCryxic 12:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


I was able to obtain a copy of the JED article about the mission, and frankly all that was mentioned about the incident was what Kirill Lokshin quoted above. However, it is not found in the main article, John Brosky's "It Takes Two to Interoperate", but rather a sidebar article (author unidentified, but apparently also Brosky) on p. 46 titled "En Garde!" which discusses the appearance in "Operation Hèraclés" of the Rafale and the Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS) naval area air-defense system.

[edit] New additions

We have not reached a consensus on adding anything new to the disputed section. Please remove it, and refrain from making any more changes to that section. Please discuss any revisions here first, and gain a consensus. Thanks. (My objection--you can't have a combat debut without combat, or a resonable expectation of combat.) --BillCJ 19:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Combat debut can be viewed on an operational level (that is, anything that's not an exercise) and doesn't have to involve combat per se.UberCryxic 19:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Phrase has been removed. The word "operational debut" may be more accurate than, but the Rafales did fly during French oepration in Afghanistan during that cruise, so it technically occurred before the incident. I do have sources on its prior use. --BillCJ 19:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Rafale's operations were considered exercises though. It never went in there and bombed anything. Regardless, I'd be fine with saying something like operational, non-exercise debut.{[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 20:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good rewrite; I can live with that. --BillCJ 22:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, about some of the larger problems in the section: what are we going to do about the tags and the embedded message within the article. I am going to open a straw poll to decide the community's general feeling on this.UberCryxic 20:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How about keeping it simple? Say where and when the French were flaing and what the situation between Pakistan and India was. All additionals are claims that can be disputed and are not 100% sourced because we have conflicting sources. Somehow it reminds me a lot about blue water navy, your decision on Russia for example lacked any source on their current navy stats. Wandalstouring 23:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

Hello all, I am opening an unofficial poll (a straw poll) to gage where people fall on some of the issues that we've been discussing. There will be three options: Remove, Keep, and Neutral.

These are the terms up for consideration:

-The embedded message within the article.
-The dispute tag.

  • If you want to see these removed, vote Remove. If you want them to stay, vote Keep, and if you want something else or are uncertain, vote Neutral. Thanks. UberCryxic 20:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not respond to user's votes and comments within the polls area. If you have a comment to make, kindly respond elsewhere. Thanks to all.Natobxl 00:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes the discussion section (moved to the bottom of page) is the most appropriate area.UberCryxic 01:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REMOVE- To remove the DISPUTED tag and the EMBEDDED message

  1. I feel like these don't belong in the article anymore in light of the overwhelming evidence. UberCryxic 20:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. They seem unnecessary. --MPD01605 (T / C) 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sources do not have to be available online let alone in their entirety. Sources have been cited, information is verifiable. Equendil Talk 22:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. As above. I've cited many newspaper and magazine articles that aren't online. Mark83 22:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. As a historian, this sort of thing really gets on my nerves. This is an incredibly recent event, which occurred during the Information Age, when we are overwhelmed with news reports, pictures, data and reports of all kinds. This is not like the Trojan War, buried in the sands of time. Either it happened or it didn't happen. Which is it? In the meantime, while you work this out, I think it should be safe to remove those tags - as neutral and helpful as they may be in theory, in practice I find them to be quite accusatory to the editor(s) and ugly and distracting to the readers. LordAmeth 23:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Remove the dispute tag, and simply state 'it is reported....XYZ', citing both JED and the other articles. It seems very likely that this patrolling took place. (As a side note, the person who added the original footnote should remember to add the <>ref<> links at the bottom, otherwise references are not displayed.)Buckshot06 00:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Between the newspapers—both French and Indian—and the Journal of Electronic Defense, I'd say we have enough reliable references; it's certainly not common practice to insist on "official government statements" when something is reported in mainstream media sources. Kirill Lokshin 02:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KEEP- To keep the DISPUTED tag and the EMBEDDED message

  1. Content Incompatible with Wikipedia policies & guidelines for the content inclusion and information reliability & validity. I have concerns about the very inclusion of this section on the article page. Therefore, the current status-quo with the inclusion of the tags should remain till this dispute is solved.Natobxl 22:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. TWO sources is not "overwhelming" evidence. You do not have a DIRECT government statement confirming the incidence. As stated before, an official statement from the French or US govts (independently viewable) will satisfy my misgivings on its inclusion in the article. Please be patient; we've made a lot of progress. Nothing is harmed by the tag remaining a while longer. --BillCJ 22:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. An ill-informed author writes something that cannot be found ANY indian or pakistani published sources. I vote keep until better references are given jaiiaf 00:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NEUTRAL-If you want something else (please explain) or are uncertain

  1. To be honest, I would agree with both sides. (God, I look dippy doing that...) But more seriously, one the one hand we have no 'official' statements from the French or US governments that verify this. On the other hand, looking at what WP:V says, the sources we do have are verifiable, and there are other statements concerning the actions of governments that do not have DIRECT government statements confirming them. However, I will point out that WP:V does not address sources that one has to pay to see. I'm tempted to send $5 via PayPal to BillCJ or Natobxl so they can check it out. My suggestion is keep the dispute tag, but not the embedded text questioning it. There! In ur base, killing ur dorfs 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Remove the whole section itself. No one is interested in a solution and no explantion of how an Atlantique type incident will be prevented. And no further research to find whether this was to disarm Pakisitan nuclear weapons that was a threat to the U.S/French Naval forces operating in Northern Arabian sea.

Chanakyathegreat 03:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


  • I'd accept that at this point. I beleive the embedded text was originally put in by someone not proficient with adding tags. --BillCJ 01:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Official Policy on Content Reliability and Verifiability

Key official policies of Wikipedia that are useful to keep in mind for the Straw Poll voters.

  • "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues."
  • "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence : Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known. Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended."
  • "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
  • "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.""
  • "Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them."
  • "Authority of underlying sources : Take a look at the sources your source is using. If the original sources are poor, the quality of the information is not likely to be improved by laundering through a putatively reliable source."
  • "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

For more information check out the following Wikipedia:Reliable sources,Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natobxl (talk • contribs) 18:31, October 27, 2006.

[edit] Discussion section

For how long should we do this? Is a week good enough?UberCryxic 23:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A week sound's good.--In ur base, killing ur dorfs 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The content regarding policies should proceed from most important to least important, hence my order.UberCryxic 01:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to quote what Nat wrote initially after he removed the section (this was on October 24):

"Removed the India-Pakistani crisis section on 17 July 2006. Inclusion of non verifiable information is not constructive. This section can be reintegrated once any credible information sources are found which validate this claim."

The standard that he set out initially, "any credible information" that validate the claim, has been met and exceeded by wild proportions.UberCryxic 02:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Any credible information" is not the Wikipedia standard. To quote AGAIN: Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues. --BillCJ 02:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The only mainstream source we have is The Hindu, which quotes Liberation. So we only have two original sources, neither one of which could be considered mainstream. If we had another mainstream source with independent research (meaning it does not use Liberation, JED, or The Hindu as its only source), then that is acceptable. A government statement would also be acceptable. --BillCJ 02:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll Second that. Natobxl 02:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, so the third (fourth now?) largest national newspaper in France and a leading industry journal aren't mainstream enough? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It depends on your definition of Multiple. With Uberman's sources below, we may have a third. Still have to read it. --BillCJ 02:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I brought this up with Bill to make sure, but I just wanted to go ahead and put it out here as well.

I've found another source, and this one is reliable and does not make ANY mention of Liberation, the Hindu, or JED.

It comes from the Bharak Rakshak Monitor, which used to be an Indian military and strategic online publication. See here. This is the relevant quote:

The only nation whose F-16s might fly against US Navy pilots is, of course, Pakistan. This point could not have gone unnoticed in Pakistan Air Force headquarters. This fits with recent Pakistani reports [emphasis mine] that during June, French Rafale fighters and airborne control stations maintained combat air patrols across the probable path of fighters flying between Karachi and Mumbai – probably to stop surprise attacks on Indian nuclear facilities near Mumbai.

What do you all think now?UberCryxic 02:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Good find. Kirill Lokshin 02:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Am reading it. May take awhile. But if it's everything you claim, you have your third source. However, as this is an Indian site, we may have a Pakistani dispute it. But it looks good so far to me. -BillCJ 02:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Have read the specified section, and it looks credible to me. the only questionalbe area is that the statement fits with recent Pakistani reports. Are those the reports published in The Hindu? Just asking. As it stands, I'd say we have our multiple sources, but we agreed to wait a week, so there's no hurry to make a decision. --BillCJ 02:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to quibble with one point in the quoted article:

It is also interesting that F-16s suitable for delivery to Pakistan should be given to the US Navy – which does not deploy F-16s. The obvious use of F-16s for the US Navy is to equip “aggressor” squadrons to train US Navy pilots to fight against F-16s. The only nation whose F-16s might fly against US Navy pilots is, of course, Pakistan.

It is true that the US Navy uses F-16s in agrressor trianing. However, they aren't just used to train navy squadrons to fly against F-16s only. The F-16s, just like the A-4s and F-5s used in the past, represent many potential adversarys. This is called Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT), and is meant to give pilots experience with flying agaist fighters other than there own type. Anyway, just wondering who else caught that point here. --BillCJ 03:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I did not. I don't even know what Dissimilar Combat Training is. But do you think the source satisfies your outstanding criteria?UberCryxic 03:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If interested, check out the Dissimilar air combat training for more info on this. --BillCJ 23:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've systematically maintained that we need to get as many independant sources of info so that the references/sources can be of Wiki quality (veracity and reliability). In view of the new article which I've just read and from all that is now available, my opinion is as follows :

  1. We have 3 non-official 'primary' sources : Liberation, JED and "Bharat Rakshak"(BR) so, this can serve as grounds for the info to make it to the articles page. Therefore, (I for one) remove my objection on this point of whether the info is relevant on the articles page. The BR website is comparable to the NetMarine site. It is run by pseudo/quasi Indian military & civil persons with defence academic specialisations (Am not exactly certain of the exact operation & management of the site but well it is not a hole in the wall outfit anycase).
  2. However, there is no official acknowledgement anywhere on the flights OVER Indian territory or borders.
  3. Therefore, (my compromise proposal) IF we are willing to come-up with a carefully choosen text wherein we clearly refer ONLY to an 'interposition' avoid the overflight part AND at the same time also point out the context (Pakistani nuclear weapons & F16 to carry them), I am willing to raise the DISPUTED tag. Also, in the text we HAVE TO mention that no official documents about these missions exist from any of the Governements involved.
  4. We should also try to research on to get the elusive Govt. docs if possible sometime in the future AND keep monitoring this section so that someone does not come along and revert/edit it to claim whatever they feel.

Any comments to these suggestions ? Natobxl 03:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Proposal

Are you fine with the following text?

"Between 9 June–19 June 2002, armed Rafale fighters from the Charles De Gaulle were reported to have flown "interposition" patrols over the Northern Arabian Sea near the India-Pakistan border to prevent potential Pakistani strikes against Indian targets. These patrols marked a crucial step forward in the Rafale's operational career and its integration with the Charles de Gaulle. However, no official government sources report on the occurrence of these missions."UberCryxic 03:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to edit that as necessary.UberCryxic 03:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As Bill Cj suggested, we should and can wait (like he suggested) a week to arrive at a final decision. Natobxl 03:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If you mean for the Straw poll, then we can. However, we two are the instigators. If we come to agreement, the whole superstructure that caused these debates and polls comes tumbling down. I should emphasize that I have no problem waiting, but then again, you just now laid out a series of criteria on how to move forward. I am trying to work within that so we can speed this up; the last thing I want is that a week from now somebody comes along and says, "ok let's wait another week." If it's something that we can solve now, there's really no reason to wait. There have been like a dozen people that have commented here - satisfying community opinion by a lot - so it's not like somebody's going to come along and suggest something too much more novel, though it's entirely possible.UberCryxic 03:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, we are all intelligent adults. We decide to wait so that the dust settles and that we can work on that text correctly. Also, I well imagine that ALL OF US have Wikipedia's interests in mind. We were till now opposed on the amount of quality info required to pass a controversial section for publication.~This is MY point of view. But, I don't run Wikipedia. So, others may have other reservations and concerns. In a week we'll know if there are any further concerns and everyone will have had a say. Natobxl 03:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
On controversial subjects we always need as many independant verifyable and reliable sources as possible. Always easy to make a claim. But, when it comes to weeding out hype from reality, it is totally different ball game. That is where Wikipedia makes a difference with reliable information.Natobxl 12:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The other concern that I had was about the bias : we cannot just accept that just because we did find info published in reputable media organisations that it lends credibility to a controversial event. We do have to double check info for opposing POVs and see if they concurr. My opinion changed when I saw the "Bharat Rakshak" article. It had nothing to do with either the JED or Liberation articles. Furthermore, it is an Asian publication source and therefore would not have published something if it had not also heard of something of this kind. Also, it does not refute that this did not happen. * For exceptional claims we have to have a 'firewall' so that we can filter-out propaganda and not start creating history on Wikipedia. With regular media nowadays carrying all kinds of 'claims' we have seen the result : Yet to be found Iraqi WMDs ... and the current political blackhole in Iraq. Or, all the unacceptable rhetoric coming out of Iran nowadays and which is relayed in certain Middle-East media. Natobxl 12:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Meh. I'm concerned about some original research problems with UberCryxic's draft:
  • We can't really state that no government documents exist; we merely haven't been able to find any, which isn't quite the same thing—and which would be quite self-referential to actually mention. (Indeed, it's almost certain that there are government documents on this topic, if only the [presumably classified] ship's logs from the de Gaulle.) The entire wording seems, to me, to be merely an attempt at working a "we don't know what we're talking about" angle into the text that has become quite unnecessary given how much the statement has been watered down already.
  • Where did the firm "to prevent potential Pakistani strikes against Indian targets" bit come from? Even the BR article only states that they were "probably" there for that purpose; and they're not necessarily an unbiased analyst on this point.
Kirill Lokshin 03:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree and in fact that is why I emphasised that I want a very carefully written text on this controversial topic on which we have found NO official document. Also, we should avoid ANY India or Pakistani bias (if we said "potential Pakistani strike"). Kirill Lokshin and BillCJ can you guys provide your inputs on a text ? BillCJ I know that you were trying to find something on the "operational, non-exercise debut" wording with UberCryxic
Natobxl 04:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, how about this:

According to several reports, in June 2002, while the Charles De Gaulle was in the Arabian Sea, armed Rafale fighters participated in interposition patrols near the India-Pakistan border, marking a significant point in the Rafale's operational career and its integration with the carrier; a number of sources have speculated on the exact nature and purpose of these flights.

(with copious footnoting of the sources, of course). This gets across the point that the existence of some mission is generally agreed on, but the exact description varies among the sources. It also removes our claim of non-existence of government documents (which we don't actually have a citeable source for) in favor of noting that the material in the articles is somewhat speculative. Kirill Lokshin 04:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try to take the weekend off from this topic. I've spent the better part of my week on this, and I need a break. We might get some new input in that time, after which I say we tackle the final draft. I'm in favor of some form of the version that's in the text now. It's concise. I'd also like to place the disclaimer statement re: no official gov't reports in some kind of reference note, either in the Endnotes or as a pop-up of some kind. I have seen something like this in another article, but I can't recall which one. --BillCJ 04:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm fine with Kirill's version.UberCryxic 18:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Expert Mediation

BillCJ has asked me to help mediate the dispute here. I am an expert in military aviation and international military affairs, so I can offer neutral expertise. Because these last couple of months of the year are very busy for me, I am willing to answer or attempt to provide answers to specific questions — and I will give precedence to those posted in this thread by Natobxl and UberCryxic since they are the principal parties in the issues being addressed.

For the record, I'm not familiar with this incident, but I do seem to recall having heard about it. I will try to get a copy of the JED article next week at work; I will not be able to post a copy here for legal reasons which have been addressed earlier, but I will be able to provide an honest assessment of it.

I'm not going to comment much on the all the preceding debate, but I will observe that — if factual — it would be a "noteworthy" incident, and thus worthy of inclusion in this article, because it would have been the first combat operation of the Charles De Gaulle and the Rafale, though certainly not a "baptism of fire." Considering that two nuclear-armed powers were at growing risk of going to war, the aircraft would have been armed, although under very strict rules of engagement. Moreover, both the Indian and Pakistani governments would have been informed of the operation and its purpose. After all, the operation would have been part of the international diplomatic effort to avert a war. The UN would also have been informed, but its authorization not necessarily have required UN approval, especially if it was conducted entirely over international waters. I would expect that this joint Franco-American "reconnaissance exercise" actually interposed itself in such a location to discourage the Indian fleet from blockading the Pakistani coast, as it had successfully done before, and the Pakistanis from deploying their Atlantique maritime patrol aircraft (and submarines) to monitor them, which would risk an incident that might provide the "spark" for escalation to general warfare.

Why would such an operation not be well-known (if it occurred)? Because none of the governments would have felt a need to, and because few reporters would think to even ask. About the only way such operations get into the public press is through specialized defense press sources (like JED) or basically by accident (like the Liberation article, which basically came out of an otherwise rote assignment — probably given to a junior reporter — on the return to port of the carrier). The sensitivity over the whole issue is another reason the respective governments would have not commented on it; most such diplomatic initiatives are never reported on by the press ... particularly if no bloodletting (and, thus, "good copy" for the evening news) occurred. However, there may indeed be other sources on it available online or offline. --Askari Mark | Talk 19:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End of straw poll and changes today

It has now been exactly one week and the straw poll is officially over. The result was 7-3-2 for removing the disputed tag and the embedded message. We should keep in mind one very important fact: straw polls do not have executive authority. They are merely there to offer a snapshot of Wikipedia's contributors. In this case, those contributors mostly felt like those warnings were not necessary.

It has also been a week since any of us pretty much did anything significant here. We started off with great spirit, "we're going to do this, discuss that," but unfortunately we have accomplished little. Days and days have passed and nothing has happened. On account of this fact, and the poll results, I have taken the initiative and removed the disputed tag and the embedded message. I have replaced the original paragraph with Kirill's proposed version above, citing as heavily as possible. If you have any concerns, please bring them up here. Thank you.UberCryxic 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good overall, though there are a lot of short phrases in the one sentence. I broke off the last one, but I didn't want to make any major changes at that time. The references look good, particularly the one with the long quote, which came out well. Nat seems to still be on holiday, so we'll see what he thinks when he gets back. -- BillCJ 23:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, still on vacation but have seen the re-written text : I think that it is perfect. It gives the 'basic level' reader an unbiased 'matter of fact' text. Guess that we have all learnt lessons from this episode : we might not agree all the time, but with patience, being diplomatic and aiming for a consensus, everyone can arrive at a decision that suits one and all. We will certainly see/read/comment each other's contributions, so, we must cooperate and discuss instead of provoque conflicts and take unilateral decisions. My opinion is that we can all pat our backs and say that we've done a good job and collectively be proud of this. Thanks to all those who participated in this discussion panel. See you all around. Natobxl 15:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberation article

  • Hi all, here is the text of the "Liberation" article (It is no longer available on the Liberation website) :

<<DELETED PENDING COPYRIGHT AUTHORISATION by Natobxl 17:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)>>

  • (If required) Anyone can run this through a online translation tool to get a personal copy of the translation. But, I prefer not to have a posting of a translation here because online translations are not exact in translating nuances and can lead to endless debates. Natobxl 12:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Besides, beware of the copyvio. Rama 17:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
(translation deleted) I specifically DID NOT want to post a translation on this page. So, if you need to translate it, I ask persons to do it outside of the WIKI site. As for the copyright, I've asked for explicit written permission from Liberation. When I receive it, I'll repost the French article on the Wiki discussion page here.Natobxl 17:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MI6 involvement

There's a sentence here claiming that MI6 were busted spying on the development of this, and there's a reference to a Guardian article that isn't online ... but I can't find any reference to this elsewhere, which is surprising, and I can't remember hearing about it at the time - anyone know of any other/better references for this? 132.185.144.122 15:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I added that. It's not ideal that is an offline source but the reference is sound, it meets verifiability requirements. Another reference is:
  • Daily Mail 8 March 1999 The £4bn shortfall; The £4bn French carrier that isn't long enough for its planes. "halfway through the Charles de Gaulle's construction, a group of MI6 officers posing as civil engineers were caught trying to spy on the carrier and had to be escorted from the shipyard."
  • In a Sunday Times article (16 June 1996 M16 stole secrets from French navy) about MI6 stealing submarine tracking technology it's also mentioned: "Three years ago the French press reported that MI6 agents posing as civilian engineers had been intercepted at Brest during a courtesy visit to a partly-built nuclear aircraft carrier. Unnamed French secret service officials claimed the British were trying to find out about the ship's armour plating protecting the nuclear power source."
I hope this is satisfactory. Mark83 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Integration in the Future Navy

situation has changed with new president nicolas sarkozy. the new ship will be french not anglo-french. Cliché Online 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

??? This page is nothing to do with the new ship. Also no matter what you say - if France uses the British design and adapts it I fail to see how it isn't a joint British/French effort. The design might be from Thales, but it is from Thales plc (the British arm) and actually by a British company working for Thales. Mark83 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] supercarrier

is it a supercarrier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.156.243 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)