Template:Did you know nominations/Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station

Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station

 * ... that the article on Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station became the most-read article on French Wikipedia after a French intelligence agency forced an administrator to delete it?
 * Comment: This is going to be mega controversial so I'll link to it at WT:DYK Authors/updators will need to be fixed the contributors toolserver link hasn't updated yet. I don't think I need a QPQ since it's not a self-nom, but correct me if I'm wrong.
 * Comment: This is going to be mega controversial so I'll link to it at WT:DYK Authors/updators will need to be fixed the contributors toolserver link hasn't updated yet. I don't think I need a QPQ since it's not a self-nom, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Created by Alþykkr (talk). Nominated by Ryan Vesey (talk) at 03:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC).


 * Should we perhaps have "volunteer" or "volunteer editor" instead of "administrator"? Our readers don't, in general, have a clue what Wikipedia-specific terms like "administrator" mean. Also, on a rather different approach;

ALT1 ... that the Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station exists? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the original hook, I don't have a strong opinion on the self-reference, but "most-read" is not well defined either here or in the article. Even the source doesn't say what this is supposed to mean; I had to look in the actual data to check, and it looks like what they are saying is that it had the most views on April 6th (which is of course not the same thing as being most-read overall). This does not necessarily need to be clarified in the hook, but it should be clarified in the article. Minor thing: if that hook is used,  should either be put in quotes or preceded by "the article on...". The radio station itself is not the most-read article. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT1 is horribly boring. Perhaps there's a joke I'm just not getting.
 * I've modified hook 1 to specify the article. I agree with you that the "most-read" statement doesn't need to be clarified in the hook and should be clarified in the article. Ryan Vesey 03:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally thought ALT1 was pretty humorous... ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not very comfortable about the idea of running this on DYK at this time, as it could be seen as sticking a finger in the eye of the French government. I've been in this situation myself when Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which I wrote, was the subject of controversy (the FBI issued a demand to the Wikimedia Foundation to delete the seal image). The solution on that occasion was to accept it for DYK but to delay publication for a few months until the controversy was over. I'd suggest a similar approach this time round. Prioryman (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support for the original hook, the article meets majority of the criteria mentioned in WP:DYK (would have been better if there were more english references), so the question is whether it is an appropriate time. The very fact that the article became most read after attempted censorship shows that censorship rarely works in a rule of law. IMHO any time is appropriate time for this DYK. LegalEagle (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep I see no reason not to run this right away, unless the WMF or the editor involved prefer us not to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support for ALT1. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose ALT1 as too boring and frankly meaningless - you could say the same about virtually anything in the real world. Specifically, it fails to meet DYK rule #3, that it must be "interesting to a broad audience." Prioryman (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that the Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station, part of the French nuclear deterrent system hardened for CBRN defense, marks its centenary as a communications station this year? -- Herostratus (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support for ALT2. A self-referential hook would be a bad idea, as would a hook that referred implicitly or otherwise to the current controversy. A hook that refers to a non-controversial anniversary, such as the centenary of the site, would be far preferable. Prioryman (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers, please note that I've started a straw poll to propose that the appearance of this article on DYK (if it is accepted) should be delayed by three months from the date that the nomination is accepted. Please see WT:DYK and feel free to add your views. Prioryman (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The proposal to delay was rejected. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

ALT3: ... that the French government forced a French Wikipedian to delete an article about classified concrete and steel? ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I strongly support a hook that references the DCRI over any other hook. It is the most interesting aspect of the article and is the hook that would cause readers to read the article. Ryan Vesey 03:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that you have said explicitly "I nominated the article for DYK in an attempt to put a thumb in the eye of the DCRI" and I would guess that your hook was chosen for the same reason. I for one would weakly support ALT2 but would strongly oppose an explicitly political and self-referential hook, as it would be an abuse of DYK to use it for political purposes. Prioryman (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly opposed to this one. It's self-referential and explicitly political. Neither is appropriate for DYK. Specifically, it fails the neutrality requirement in Did you know. Prioryman (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing inherently wrong with self-reference in cases where self-reference is justified by independent reliable sources. If this involved eg. BBC instead, would we mention the controversy then? It seems as if this controversy - regardless of who is involved - is the best hook to draw readers into the article, the purpose of a hook. It's not political, we can speak of this controversy neutrally without undo hand wringing over self-reference, so long as its justifiable by the weight of the independent reliable sources that support it. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Self-referentiality is, quite rightly, very rare on DYK; this is supposed to be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "the encyclopedia that promotes itself". DYKs that not only refer to a controversy involving Wikipedia but are explicitly intended to be a retaliation against one of the parties in that controversy are, frankly, an abuse of DYK. It's inherently non-neutral; it's actually intended to intervene in the controversy with the intention of causing harm to one of the parties. The only way to ensure that NPOV is respected with this DYK is to go for a hook that doesn't refer to the controversy. Prioryman (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That was an unfortunate comment by DYK nominator Ryan Vesey, though honest. It's probably not worth making an issue over and consensus would support Ryan Vesey in the end, but I agree that the DYK shouldn't be used to attack another party, it's not neutral. I'll support your compromise of not having the controversy in the hook assuming the DYK goes through. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Same reasons given by Prioryman, per above discussion. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Prioryman. TheOverflow (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, it doesn't seem to me like anyone has given much of a thought to the original hook. It's neutral, it's not WP:POINTy (because it states a fact, in a neutral manner, without going HAHA SCREW YOU FRANCE!) - it's new and interesting and relevant. Let's not let this languish because we're too timid to be BOLD. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty much covered by the same objections as to ALT3 - i.e. that it's self-referential, and we know from the nominator that it's intended to be explicitly political . It's meant to be a deliberate intervention in a controversy involving Wikipedia, so it would fall foul of NPOV in any case. As Green Cardamom suggests above, the better compromise would be to run a hook that doesn't include the controversy. Currently ALT1 and ALT2 qualify for that, but ALT1 is too boring and meaningless, so that leaves ALT2 as the only remaining alternative, assuming nobody suggests another one. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the wikipedia controversy is actually the most interesting thing about this topic, which is otherwise a pretty yawn-inducing one. And I don't see what the motivation of the nominator has to do with the validity or otherwise of the hook, a hook should stand or fall on its own merits, not on who nominated it or why. Personally I can't see a lot wrong with the original hook although the word "forced" is arguably an overstatement. Gatoclass (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Yes, without the "Controversy" text, this wouldn't have reached the 5x expansion requirement. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 08:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)