Talk:French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle/Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

NEUTRAL-If you want something else (please explain) or are uncertain
Chanakyathegreat 03:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Liberation article

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

<>


 * (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)

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)

Will BillCJ please stop his nonsense about British spies "evaluating" the shield. The French Navy does not need any "evaluation", the shield works well, thank you. The Brits just want to steal it because they are incapable of doing the same.(76.176.119.249 (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC))


 * And all of that is in the reference given? And how exactly were the spies going to move the shield they were trying to steal off of the carrier?? Please don't make changes to cited info without adding verifiable reliable sources that actually state (in understandable English) what you are changing it to. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. "Evaluate" is accurate given the stories. Anon. would do well to stick to facts rather than voice unsubstantiated opinions, e.g. "the shield works well, thank you. The Brits just want to steal it because they are incapable of doing the same" -- I don't know for sure but I'm guessing that a nation that has been building its own nuclear submarines for decades knows a thing or two about protecting nuclear reactors on a boat/ship. Mark83 (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not about references but proper language for spying activities. Obviously we are not talking about physically removing the shield here but stealing the method, i.e. the design. The use of the verb "evaluating" implies a casual and almost benevolent action but the actions of spies are illegal and malfeasant. Regarding Mark83's remark it is well known that the French Navy has unique designs for small nuclear reactors (see the various Wikipedia articles on French nuclear submarines) and if Britain can do the same, why spy? Last point - since when all references should be in English? (76.176.119.249 (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Stealing is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent -- we only have references for "Unnamed French secret service officials claimed the British were trying to find out about the ship's armour plating protecting the nuclear power source" - no one was proven to have stolen anything. To suggest "stealing" here without a reference is original research and therefore totally inappropriate. Mark83 (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The references are in English because this is the English Wikipedia. Foreign references can be added but no editor has yet. Mark83 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another point - you now say "French Navy has unique designs for small nuclear reactors" -- the topic is not reactor design but armour for reactors, e.g. your first comment here, "the shield works well, thank you." Mark83 (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies for not being clear on the English comment: What I menat was to use understandable English in writing from the source. However, English language sources are preferred on EN.WP, per several polixcies on the issues. As to "stealing", intelectual property, ideas, and concepts can be stolen, but that was not clear from what was written. As Mark also pointed out, it's also not supported by the sources. - BillCJ (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I will not accept the word "evaluating" for reasons stated above. Trespassing to access restricted information and trade secrets is not a benign evaluation. In addition spies do not engage into their risky activities unless they expect to learn something of value. I suggest "illegally learning". (76.176.119.249 (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC))


 * No. You don't know they "were illegally" doing anything! Your edit suggests that they succeeded in viewing the reactor armour and we have no evidence to support that. -- You have assumed something you cannot know or provide a reference for and passed judgement with regard to its legality without stating what French or international law you believe to have been violated. That is the definition of original research.
 * I would not be violating the three revert rule to revert again, but I'll let the issue cool off for a day. However I will be changing the section back to something that is supported by references . Mark83 (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No. You have not provided any argument for your thesis. First, whether they succeeded or not is irrelevant, only intent is important, and they did trespass. Second, trespassing to access a restricted defense facility is obviously illegal (76.176.119.249 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I agree with the above assessment. "Evaluating" seems inappropriate in this context. I would recommend to keep "learning" and add some qualification to indicate that these are not normal activities. (76.79.199.26 (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I concur. "Evaluating" is simply not appropriate here. (89.159.157.108 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I do not need to provide a thesis for my argument! I have added a statement to the article that is backed up by a reference. You have not provided a reference for your "thesis". Please stop wasting everybody's time, review Wikipedia's policies regarding verifiability. Mark83 (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Conincidence too that when the original objection comes up against Wikipedia policy that multiple anon. edits support the edits? Mark83 (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just going to delete the sentence It is believed that they were evaluating the method of shielding the nuclear reactors when I noticed this talk page discussion. It is believed is a big red flag for not encyclopedic and not- proven. But I will refrain from deleting it while this discussion is ongoing but I dont see any factual evidence to support the statement. MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * As a rather late follow-up to this question, note that the French Navy uses "Charles de Gaulle" on its French-language website. TheFeds 17:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

supercarrier
is it a supercarrier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.156.243 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No; a supercarrier must displace at least 75,000 tons; the Charles de Gaulle displaces around 40,000 tons.Tastyduck (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a rather brave statement. Who decided that a supercarrier must displace at least 75,000 tons?  Can you provide a citation for ths startling pronouncement? History shows in fact that ships as small as 20,000 tons have been described as supercarriers in their day, so it would really seem that the definition is, to say the least, a bit rubbery.  Nick Thorne  talk  12:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nick, I assume you'll not object to calling the Essex class "supercarriers", since they also displace over 20,000 tons? I'll get right on that - 26 ship articles need to be changed! ;) Yes, it is a bit rubbery historically, but since the advent of the Forrestal class, they have been the seen as the limit since that time. Since they displaces around 75,000 tons in their later lives, that seems to have stuck as the limit. However, the new RN QEs aren't quite that large, but the term is being applied to them, and will probably stick. However, they will displace more than the Forrestals did when they enterd service. - BillCJ (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL. Actually your point is well taken, my objection was mostly to the word "must".  In the end I believe that the term "supercarrier" is really a meaningless political/media term and has no real relevance to actual ships and really serves little practical use.  OTOH, I would be happy to see the 20K t limit applied, as an ex birdie who served in HMAS Melbourne, I would love to see the old girl described as a supercarrier!  :)  -  Nick Thorne  talk  05:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Refit Update
In the section about the recent refit, the article said that the refit "would be completed March 2008." Is there an update about the completion of the refit and return to service? Nutster (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

second ship
Is there any information available about the abortive plans for a second Charles de Gaulle class carrier? 76.66.197.30 (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Article name
I am simply not agreed that the name of the articl need to be "French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91)". This ship has a hull number, her article can be "Charles de Gaulle (R91)" without causing any trouble. Naming conventions (ships) does not say that ships that have a hull number must still carry the lengthly [nationality]+[type]+[name]+[hull number] conventions

Thenaming convention [name]+[hull number] has been the practice with all modern ship of the French Navy for some time on Wikipedia. Furthermore, changing to [nationality]+[type]+[name]+[hull number] format would be problematic for a number of ships: the avisos are frigates by NATO standard, the frigates are often destroyers, etc.

There is no reason for Charles De Gaulle to have a particular status, and the [nationality]+[type]+[name]+[hull number] is really redundant. Rama (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you're wrong about the ship naming convention. The convention for military ships quite clearly recommends the current usage. -  Nick Thorne  talk  20:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree with Nick (which is why I moved it back). — Bellhalla (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * They recommand no such thing. There not a single example on these conventions of a ship having both [Nation]+[Type], and a hull number. I have never seen a ship named with [nation]+[type]+[name]+[hull number] before. Since the hull number and name are enough to unambigously identify a ship, [nation]+[type]+[name]+[hull number] would be redundent.
 * Furthermore, you are missing a good opportunity to aleviate the problem of conflicting conventions across navies. To cite an example on WP:NC-SHIPS, Admiral Kuznetsov is not an "aircraft carrier", but an "aviation cruiser"; we call it an "aircraft carrier" because of similarities with Western carriers, but on the same time we servilely parrot the grandiose USAyan claims about "super-carriers". That is POV.
 * This is a bloated and redundent convention, and also flashpoint for POV issues that can be bypassed in a very simple manner, without any inconvenient whatsoever. Rama (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the naming convention guideline but I would have thought common sense would show that Charles de Gaulle (R91) would a reasonable non-ambigous (and unique) article name. I would suggest that the guideline needs to be re-visted for non pre-fixed (dont have USS/HMS etc) ships that have a pennant number. MilborneOne (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Bellhalla and Nick Thorne that the naming convention here has been interpreted correctly in the current name of the article. Whether or not a ship is disambiguated from other uses or ships of the name by either a launch date or a pennant number is not connected with the use of the preceding prefix or ship type and nationality combination. 'Méduse (1810)', or 'Phaeton (1782) would be unique article names but the guidelines clearly call for French frigate Méduse (1810) and HMS Phaeton (1782). Why change the established convention on how ships are titled as soon as the different disambiguator comes in?

The argument that pov can occur is perhaps true, but can be worked out on a case by case basis, and does not need to cause conflicts. Differences also occur in the age of non-pennant number navies. Ships like the French corvette Berceau (1794) for example were classed by the British in the smaller frigate band for example.

The guideline is clearly unambiguous 'For ships of navies or nations that don't have a standard ship prefix, name the article (Nationality) (type) (Name):' Standardised across wikipedia and across the ships of all navies of all periods. How you choose to add a further disambiguation if you so need or choose (either pennant or launch date) is up to you, but to say 'Naming conventions (ships) does not say that ships that have a hull number must still carry the lengthly [nationality]+[type]+[name]+[hull number] conventions' is to bypass the main point of the guideline to quibble over a small detail because you dislike the convention as it applies in this instance. Benea (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, "Méduse (1810)" or "Phaeton (1782)" could very well be ambiguous. It so happens that they are not, but nothing guarantees that no collision would occurre. In contrast, hull numbers are set internationally in a way that they yield no ambiguity -- and intrinsically indicate the Navy and type of the ship, another reason why [nation]+[type] is unneeded, bloated and redundent.
 * My argument about POV is not that things can be perfect, but that they do not need to be worse than they have to be. There is no easy way to name the ships of the old sailing navy, so I am fine with Berceau. However I see no point in insisting on problems that can be simply avoided.
 * Another point: search for "Floréal" in the "search" field will immediately yield suggestions to Floréal (F 730); typing "Berceau" yields noting at all. Another example that shows how [nation]+[type] yields concrete drawbacks and why it should be avoided when possible.
 * Really, this [nation]+[type]+[name]+[hull number] convention is wrong in so many ways that I cannot fathom why it would be even considered. And again, it is not in Naming conventions (ships). Rama (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia works by consensus and the consensus does not agree with you on this point. If you wish to argue for a change in the ship naming convention, then this is not the place to be doing it.  You have two alternatives, either go back to Naming conventions (ships) and argue your case there, otherwise let is go. -  Nick Thorne  talk  00:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your reference to consensus is gratuitous:
 * nothing on Naming conventions (ships) supports your idea of the conventions
 * you just happen to be agreed with Bellhalla and Benea, and me with MilborneOne.
 * either way, no clear consensus has emerged that you can invoke in such a manner. Rama (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, it says,
 * "For ships of navies or nations that don't have a standard ship prefix, name the article :"
 * and
 * "For modern ships, use the ship's hull numbers (hull classification symbols) (for the United States Navy) or pennant numbers (for the Royal Navy and many European and Commonwealth navies) if it is available, sufficiently unique, and well known."
 * —WWoods (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Since Charles De Gaulle is a modern ship and has a unique and known pennant number, her pennant number should be used ([name]+[pennant number]), rather than [nation]+[type]+[name] -- and certainly rather than [nation]+[type]+[name]+[pennant number], which is not recommanded anywhere and of which no example is given anywhere. Rama (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an outside, otherwise uninvolved editor, I have to say that I never considered the prefix and suffix parts of WP:NC-SHIP to be a mutually exclusive, either/or affair. To my eye, the prefix part of the guideline tells you what to put at the beginning of an article's name, and the suffix section gives the end.  — Kralizec! (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are quite right. They are not exclusive, and whether they should both be featured can be considered. And even a superficial reflexion on the question shows that there are no advantages to putting the prefix, many drawbacks at doing so, and that the practice has been no to put it. Rama (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The consensus is expressed through the ship naming convention (which you are apparently seeking to over-rule here) not by a number of editors on this one talk page. As I said before, if you want to get the convention changed, this is not the place to be arguing for it.  Whether you like it or not, the consensus is to use the the current convention and in the case of this article, the name "French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91)" is a reflection of that convention.  The fact that you do not like that form of name means nothing WRT the accepted usage of the naming convention.  There are literally hundreds of articles named in accordance with this convention and you seeking to deny that because of your own personal preferences impresses me not at all.  You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but you would be well advised to realise that not everyone will agree with you and in this case the community has already made a determination against your position.  The only way for a collaborative process to work is if we all agree to common guidelines about how we do things, have our disagreements certainly about what those guidelines should be while developing them, but once the community has come to a decision, follow it. -  Nick Thorne  talk  21:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus to which you refer exists only in your head. Nothing in the ship naming convention supports your claims.
 * I am not willing to have my arguments dismissed by vagues references to an imaginary consensus or by insinuations that I am emotionally involved. I neither like nor dislike your bloated convention, I simply happen to point that
 * it is not supported by the ship naming convention
 * it entails a number of significat drawbacks while providing no advantage at all
 * it is not actually in practice.
 * Rama (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) You may continue to deny reality all you like, but reality is not constrained by your interpretation of it. Despite your ridiculous statements, the naming convention unambiguously supports the current name for this article. Get over it. - Nick Thorne  talk  15:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

re co ordinating

— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.144.16 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 June 2011


 * I have removed the co-ordinates - not really relevant for a ship. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Guardian accusation/suggestion that the Charles de Gaulle left some refugees to their fate
Would it be worth having a note on this suggestion/accusation in the Guardian that the CDG was the aircraft carrier that left these people to their fate? Shenker, Jack (2011) Aircraft carrier left us to die, say migrants: Exclusive: Boat trying to reach Lampedusa was left to drift in Mediterranean for 16 days, despite alarm being raised,The Guardian, Sunday 8 May I think it might be but am not sure (Msrasnw (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC))
 * No - it is all speculation with no hard facts, not sure if it is particularly notable to the ship either. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just heard about this in the radio - . I find it a bit shocking that 70 people in a boat adrift in the Med could be abandoned despite the "authorities" a being aware - a helicopter with Army/Armee written on the side and an Aircraft Carrier passing them by and taking pictures of them while 30 were dead and another 30+ yet to die. Can we not report the Guardian's reporting of this and also report denials? Can such a newspaper story be reliable? Perhaps it might be best as a stand alone article. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC))

Catapults
Info box needs count and locations of catapults and their capacity.79.182.199.241 (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Largest Western European warship
The Charles de Gaulle is still the largest warship in Western Europe until the HMS Queen Elizabeth at Rosyth has finished sea trials. Even though not complete, she is now larger than the de Gaulle, and when completed, her and her sister ship HMS Prince of Wales will be the largest warships in Western Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.106.20 (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC) With the addition of the final two sponsons on September 26, 2013, HMS Queen Elizabeth's flight deck is structurally complete except for ski ramp and radar placement. Ski ramp and main radar now in place. Her final full load displacement will be approx. 70,600 tons with a length of 280 m (920 feet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.106.20 (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC) HMS Queen Elizabeth is now structurally complete, and was floated out of dry dock on July 17, 2014 to complete fitting out. She will begin sea trials in 2017.

DAESH Operations
Shouldn't the title concerning operations on DAESH be that instead of talking about Islamic State that does not even exist? 2001:708:110:29:0:0:0:305 (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC) 21.11.2015


 * We are just using the common name in English for the organisation which whatever you call it clearly exists. Perhaps it can be changed if the primary article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant gets moved but not before. MilborneOne (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Mirage 2000 - Really?
I can see no evidence that Mirage 2000's have ever been capable of operation off a carrier, certainly not mentioned in the [|M2000 article]. I do not doubt that they were involved in the operations described, just that they must have operated from a land based runway somewhere else.Kitbag (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101201083131/http://www.winnipegfreepress.com:80/world/breakingnews/french-rafale-jet-crashes-off-pakistans-coast-pilot-parachutes-to-safety-110935929.html to http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/breakingnews/french-rafale-jet-crashes-off-pakistans-coast-pilot-parachutes-to-safety-110935929.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111120191448/http://www.defense.gouv.fr:80/dga/equipement/naval/le-porte-avions-2-pa2 to http://www.defense.gouv.fr/dga/equipement/naval/le-porte-avions-2-pa2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)