# Talk:Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station

Since the French government targeted Wikipedia member(s) with threats if this was not deleted I suggest this be locked from deletion or edits as would other controversial entries. If you wish to make a statement I suggest you block all edits from France. - 99.162.63.18 08:37, 6 April 2013‎

While I have no involvement in this article nor any present real interest and was brought to it by curiosity, I admittedly find your comment disconcerting; The implication here being that Wikipedia should block an entire nation from editing it goes against the very principle that Wikipedia does not censor.  ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ②  14:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I know of no technical way to prevent an administrator from deleting an article.  However, any administrator who deletes an article without having justification such as an WP:AFD or WP:OFFICE can be subject to sanctions.  I very much doubt any sanction against a French administrator acting under government order would extend beyond temporarily removing whatever permissions he had that were necessary to carry out the court order (e.g. it would be in the spirit of WP:THREAT.  For example, the administrator may get a non-punitive temporary desysop or even a block until - and only until - the government order is lifted.  Such actions would probably take place at the WP:ARBCOM level or higher, possibly even the WP:OFFICE level.    davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
In this particular case, the sysop in question (and three others) asked to be temporarily de-sysopped, without prejudice. Their requests have been granted and their admin status was removed this morning (log here). Bouchecl (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't see there are coverage in reliable, independent sources that justifies this section. Most sources are Wikimedia, which is not an independent source in relation to this. Slashdot is, as I understand, not a reliable source. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's now related by most public media in France: Le Monde, Le Figaro, France Inter, 20 minutes. See: google.fr DCRI pierre sur Haute. Of course, it is presumed you usually read French media. This leads to a more adequate question (IMHO). Is this complete article Military radio station of Pierre-sur-Haute encyclopedical in the context of a English, Simple English, German or Japanese encyclopedy? The answer is probably no. This controversy is maybe encyclopedical, but should rather be transferred to the article Direction centrale du renseignement intérieur. This article should be completed, article for example the rôle of its former chief (B.Squarcini) in the  Woerth-Bettencourt affair.--Xavier Sylvestre (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Each language version of Wikipedia has its own guidelines and practices regarding which articles are included. Though generally, the language of the sources or the physical location of the subject does not matter at all. It is perfectly acceptable for an article on the English Wikipedia to have all foreign-language references. — RockMFR 14:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I found an article in Le Monde, via French Wikipedia, so then we have at least one reliable, independent source. The article doesn't mention the name of the administrator, and I don't think this article should either (at this point). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Rémi Mathis is not a standard admin. He is the legal responsible of French Wikimedia (non lucrative association), but also a French State employee. This makes this story and the reality of the threats more important--Xavier Sylvestre (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC).
If a Reliable Source can show that he was ordered to delete this as a condition of employment rather than as a condition of being a French citizen, that would be enclyclopedic, because it would change the tone from "any French administrator may be called upon to do this" to "Any employee of the French government who is an administrator may be called upon to do this."  The difference is important.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
David, thanks for your opinion. For time being, the official tone is "The (associative) responsible of Wikimedia has been convoked and forced to do this". (also see fr:Association_loi_1901). The point that he is also a Civil Servant (library conservator) is my information (also lightly remembered by Le Monde and Le Figaro). Of course, the reaction to this sort of threat may depend on status, age and personality. On a legal point of view, only a judge can order Wikipedia contributors to do precise things. But of course, this sort of thing may infer with career management--Xavier Sylvestre (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC).
[Edit conflict] I've been following this story since it broke on Thursday and Rémi Mathis position with the Bibliothèque nationale de France was never mentioned in discussions on frwiki. On the other hand, his involvement as president of Wikimédia France and his public profile (he's done numerous TV and radio interviews and was quoted many times in the press promoting Wikimedia projects) has been mentioned as a factor as to why he was singled out by the DCRI. Bouchecl (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
One further point. Wikimédia France has no oversight capacity over the French-language Wikipedia. The association promotes Wikimedia projects in France but does not host nor has any editorial control over any project. That's something the French authorities do not understand very well. Bouchecl (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Claude. The systematic behaviour of French authorities with associations is to convoke the "President", who is registered (at the Préfecture and in the "Journal Officiel"). Of course, what the Police does not understand in general, is that they must go through a judge. In this specific case, they refused to deal with Wikipedia legal experts. They also didn't understand what WP:FR is not restricted to contributors from France. The most dubious is not to have understood that Wikimedia "bureau" (sens loi 1901) had to protest, and that the effect would necessary be important.--Xavier Sylvestre (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not dispute what you say here, it's been discussed at length on the Bulletin des administrateurs and on Le Bistro. However, I'm not sure this talk page is the correct forum to have a broader discussion when the Village pump has one. Cordialement. Bouchecl (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but it is pretty easy to get actual references for a controversy section. Like Russia Today: http://rt.com/news/french-intelligence-wikipedia-page-removal-454/
Slashdot accepts submissions from the general public, which are then voted to the front page. It frequently features untrue material and promotional headlines. It doesn't have a good enough reputation for reliability for wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

However, the links it provides sometimes are reliable.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Then use links, don't use slashdot itself, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank all the Wikipedia volunteers for creating this interesting article! I also wrote a little thank you note to the DCRI (through the French minister of the interior at http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/Infos-du-site/Nous-contacter/Ecrire-au-ministre-de-l-Interieur ) for alerting the world to its existence. Thanks, everyone! Chrisahn (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The French government will now become intimately familiar with the Streisand effect.  I can't say this upsets me at all.  Quite the reverse. - Denimadept (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they will:  From fr:Effet_Streisand#Exemples_majeurs snapshot
* 2013 : la DCRI fait supprimer l'article Wikipédia fr:Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute snapshot par pression sur le président de Wikimedia France, qui dispose par ailleurs de droits d'administrateur sur Wikipédia. Selon Wikiscan, en l'espace de quelques heures, l'article en question est devenu le plus consulté sur fr.wikipedia, dépassant même celui sur les fr:Attentats du 11 septembre 2001 snapshot, alors que l'article sur l'effet Streisand s'est hissé au onzième rang.
[wiki-formatting, snapshots, and other minor markups added]
References: http://blog.wikimedia.fr/la-dcri-menace-un-administrateur-de-wikipedia-pour-supprimer-un-article-5477 ·  http://authueil.org/?2013%2F04%2F06%2F2133-secret-defense ·  http://mobile.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2013/04/06/la-dcri-accusee-d-avoir-force-illegalement-la-suppression-d-un-article-de-wikipedia_3155405_651865.html · "La DCRI s'attaque à Wikipédia et découvre «l'effet Streisand»", Slate.fr, 06/04/2013.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Chrisahn: As a French tax contributor, I am not really pleased with the couple of DCRI agents who spent their paid working time on this. But please, write some support words for Rémi, who needs it--Xavier Sylvestre (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC).
Xavier, my remark about thanking the DCRI was sarcasm. I think these agents are dangerous idiots. I'm glad they made fools of themselves, and the more "greatful" messages the minister of the interior gets the better. Thanks for the link to Rémi's page! Chrisahn (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I think I understand sarcasm... I am now waiting for the sarcastic journalist who will ask Manuel Valls about this affair. Although, due to years of sarkozyst administration of the DCRI, he has also to deal with other affairs: Cahuzac, Merah, ...--Xavier Sylvestre (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

If the French administrator was summoned by means of a written communication, can I suggest that that is added to the archives and made available for the world to see? It would be especially helpful to know the name of the person who wrote the letter, and the address to which the administrator was summoned; I'm sure that a camera located outside it would soon enable photographs of the ignorant people involved to be posted to ensure maximum embarrassment. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Huge chunks in this article are unsourced. I added cite tags to show where. This is a problem for the DYK nomination and for the controversy since it is supposedly revealing military "secrets". Where did this information come from? Is is verifiable? Is it true? Did someone make it up? We don't know because parts are not sourced. If the information is from a public verifiable source, no problem. An article like this needs to have tight sourcing given the ongoing controversy. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No need for all the individual tags.  Have you checked to see if ref 1 meets any of your tags?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
You seem to have tagged a lot of parts which have a citation. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by that but you can see the tags here.  -- 16:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
You don't need one reference per sentence.  Usually one per para if it's using the same ref is just fine.  Does that help?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Citing on a per-paragraph basis can be done "so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." (WP:CITEFOOT).  The citations here are not clear. The citations do not come at the end of paragraphs, rather for single sentences in the middle of paragraphs.  -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, well your spam cite-needed approach isn't helpful.  Please check the references given and see what really isn't cited.  Thanks!  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The Guardian have covered the story. Span (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
It's useful to have individual fact tags in so that editors can go about finding sources. At the moment the article looks referenced (in different languages) and we don't know where the gaps are. Span (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
It's useful to have editors check that references actually cite the sentences before tagging them.  It's not useful to tag nearly every unreferenced individual sentence in an article.  That's not how Wikipedia works. The article is clearly in need of help because of the massive banner at the top of it saying that "references need to be improved", but it doesn't need every single sentence to be tagged.  This isn't a BLP.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I've always supported a tag for every sentence, but I believe I'm in the minority.  In any case, it would be useful if editors who checked to see what was and was not supported by the sources would at least leave hidden comments at the end of sentences showing which source supports it. Ryan Vesey 22:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Since the main source is this TV documentary, how do you suggest we proceed? As a native French speaker, I could watch the doc add the approximate timing of statements in the form of hidden comments. Would it be useful? Bouchecl (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Bouchecl, it might be useful to go through the documentary and check that everything that can be referenced from has a cite in the article. Is more info likely to be published in reliable sources in the coming week (in France)? Many of the sources currently given in the article are not strong. Span (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
A lot of people are looking for material, I'm pretty sure. As for recording timings, I'll do that later this evening (EDT). Bouchecl (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
It's nice when an article can cite every phrase, particularly a contentious one. But it just looks querulous to tag every sentence with "citation needed", particularly when the references are there but at the end of the para - David Gerard (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
"It just looks querulous to tag every sentence". Sure. I just suspect the article will sit there indefinitely as is. Span (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it'll work out OK in this case - people are already transcribing and translating the 1981 TV show, and we should be able to reference pretty much everything with timestamps as well - David Gerard (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I'm tagging every statement attributed to the documentary with the timings as a way of double-checking sourcing coming from the Télé Loire 7 piece (I place them in comments for now), so there may be a lot of edits for the next hour or so. Bouchecl (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
After closely watching the documentary, I have sourced 95% of all assertions attributed to it in the article, including the fact that this facility may be called to relay orders related to the force de dissuasion nucléaire and the data bit rate. The only discrepancies were minors (height of the towers not mentioned so I removed that fragment; lenght of tunnels : 400 m instead of 300 m). I left the timings in comments throughout the text, so feel free to check them out. Bouchecl (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Great work. Much improved, reliable and verifiable with no question about which source belongs to what fact. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't a better translation of "Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute" be "Pierre-sur-Haute Military Radio Station"? I haven't yet put any thought into the capitalisation, but the current word order just doesn't sound like English. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Ryan Vesey 19:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, most likely just "Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station".  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Fine with me. I guess the creator was a bit too quick when creating the article. Bouchecl (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the original editor was coming at it with a French linguistic bias.  But whatever.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Quite possible! ;) Bouchecl (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I've moved the page. I was thinking of doing this as a bold action in the first place, but as this is now such a high profile article I thought I'd better get a sanity check first. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, running this past you all for comment rather than being bold and starting another battle.
Would section about the French article benefit from an ({{infobox military conflict}})? It could look something like this -

Discuss Mjroots (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Obviously no, ridiculously local POV. When writing about Wikipedia, don't write in-universe - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
You're a week late for April Fools' Day, I'm afraid... Prioryman (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
LOL! Bouchecl (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

\o/ Simon Villeneuve (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Great! "strength = 1 admin" is wrong though. "strength = thousands of volunteers around the globe" is more like it. :-) Chrisahn (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Strength amended. Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
More seriously, I think being triumphalist about this, even on the talk page, may be a bad idea. WMFR is contacting DCRI and trying very hard to calm things down and allow them to save face - I'm sure WMFR expects to work with DCRI and other French government bodies in the future, and would like to do so without residual rancor - David Gerard (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL.
Watch out, I think Jacques Clouseau is working for DCRI now.;p Chief Inspector Charles Dreyfus <pretty in pink 12:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Interesting situation.  WM France actually gives them the time of day enough to try and work with them?  I'd be interested in why they bother, as it seems equivalent to trying to work with white supremacists or something.  These are people who don't get it on so many levels that working with them is probably useless, and they also have little or no leverage with Wikipedia, unless they want to the world to laugh at them more.  This isn't triumphalist, it's just that giving them attention diverts resources, is probably useless, and is also a exercise in legitimizing them.  Just because they hold some position in government doesn't mean... much.  Would WM work with Rick Santorum if he complained that an article was pro-gay?  Would it work with him to "save face" if he were embarrassed?  Be——Critical 14:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, only too short en analysis. Take this: the original information was broadcasted by an authorised reporter thus only the original broadcasting was authorised. As a result, only the number expected watching the given news program - so exposed to the associated set of advertisement - are considered eligible to that information. By the way, what link between holding a position in government, with Rick Santorum? -- Askedonty (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Santorum is just someone I was familiar with.  Wiki would not try to work with him.  Why would they try to work with others who similarly don't get it?  Why would they help some who are anti-freedom and out of touch to save face, but refuse the same help to others, similarly out of touch and anti-freedom, just in a somewhat different way? Be——Critical 02:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
So, you're saying that only someone who watched the original broadcast on a television has the right to discuss that program?--Auric  talk 03:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
You were not born after 1989 or were you ? --Askedonty (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
No, before. But what does that have to do with it?--Auric  talk 04:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, 1989 marked the end of an Eastern Europe's isolation that impacted on their information system. Now that remark of mine above was not a definition of rights, instead the logical path that can be considered preliminary to a struggle regarding rights between any donor and his clients. They always want a monopoly ? If you are not in a position of taking your freedom usually the censor wins. --Askedonty (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This whole episode reads like a bad spy novel.  What is really going on?  Is this a case of us being used to instigate an incident?  is it counterintelligence?  What is the target (Iran?  North Korea?)?  Or was this a bungled job? Bearian (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

More like some poor sap screwed up. Span (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
We even have an article on that: see Hanlon's razor Bouchecl (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
*puts on afdb* it does make one think (dangerous, i know) if perhaps this wasnt some sort of cleverly-executed deception/feint... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.12.71.240 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 11 April 2013‎

[1] - the claimed sequence of events is false, but the interesting bit is the assertion at the end:

Le parquet avait déjà donné son accord pour une garde à vue ?
Oui, c'est certain. Nous ne sommes pas dans la négociation du droit, nous l'appliquons ! Nous avons donné une chance à celui qui a les moyens de mettre fin à l'infraction. S'il ne le fait pas, nous appliquons le droit.
"Would you have put him in custody?" "Yes, that's certain. We are not negotiating, we are applying. We gave a chance for the one who could fix the problem to end the illegal situation. If he does not fix it, we apply the law."
That is, despite other claims, it was meant as a direct threat - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, according to the same report, the next step might be for the French judiciary to order ISPs to block access to the article. It remains to be seen whether this might actually happen - one would think it would be a bit pointless by now. Prioryman (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
If that were to happen then I don't think that there would be any point in the foundation making any further attempt to help the DCRI to save face, as they seem intent on making themselves a laughing stock. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Be——Critical 16:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's not get carried away here. It is important to note that the statement is not government policy, as they came from Emmanuel Roux, secretary general of the main commissaires de police union, rather than from the ministry of the Interior. His interview demonstrates he has a poor knowledge of Wikipedia's structures (for instance, he sees the national Wikimedia chapters, such as Wikimedia France, as a subsidiary of the Wikimedia Foundation, while the two are legally separate entities), and he falsely states for instance that the article is "extremely precise, including rates of resistance of materials, for instance" (never been the case in the French article; see for yourself in the page history.). The most plausible explanation I read on the French Bistro (village pump), where the issue has been discussed at length today, is that the cops lobby for more power over the Internet and they want to push this thing as a test case. I don't think they have been very successful so far... Bouchecl (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Heh... aren't you just supporting the idea that we must very forcibly apply Hanlon's razor here? Be——Critical 03:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"aren't you just supporting the idea that we must very forcibly apply Hanlon's razor" I'm not. In fact, I'd argue the opposite: this is DCRI pushing the limits to see what it can get away with, just like U.S. cops stopping & searching with a drug dog & no warrant (nor probable cause). If they get away with it, they do it elsewhere. And the Minister's claims of specifics, I suggest, is deliberate deceit. (If he's that ill-advised, I have to revise my previous view: Clouseau is Director of DCRI.8o ;p )  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  06:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Update: The French magazine Le Point revealed on 12 April that the French military has launched an investigation on the major (a NCO rank in the French army) featured in the 2004 TV documentary used as the main source of this article, although the filming was pre-approved at the time by the commander of Air Base 942. It seems the military authorities f*ked up 9 years ago and they still want to put the genie back in the bottle. After the spectacular failure of last week, they're now engaging in the blame game. More about this on the the French Village Pump. Bouchecl (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a strong precedent on Wikipedia to avoid identifying living people when such identification would only "add insult to injury", so to speak – see Star Wars kid, Kobe Bryant sexual assault case, Genie (feral child), and 2012 Delhi gang rape case, for instance. This is in keeping with a general sentiment that Wikipedia should follow basic journalistic ethics in its coverage of current events. Last I checked, Rémi Mathis had requested that the press not identify him, and the Foundation had asked that Wikimedians give him his privacy. Have things changed, or is this still the case? If it is, I would suggest that we remove all mentions of his name from the article, as well as any cross-references from his own article. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 09:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Since he is considered notable enough to have his own article on the English language Wikipedia even without the Pierre-sur-Haute incident, mentioning him by name does not seem to be an invasion of privacy. The French authorities may have chosen him simply because he is a high profile French Wikipedian. By his own admission, he had nothing to do with the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the content here because it's an egregious violation of WP:SELFREF.  Presumably it would fit in places like the Mathis article, the censorship of Wikipedia article, or the French Wikipedia article (or all of them together, perhaps), but it doesn't belong here.  Quoting bits of WP:SELFREF: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves (even if an article itself becomes famous, it should not report this about itself).  If publicity regarding an article is significant enough to be included in Wikipedia, that information would not be included in the article, unless it is relevant to the topic of the article itself. For example, a discussion of Stephen Colbert's call for vandalism of the Elephant article might be appropriate for the article on The Colbert Report, but not for the article on elephants—the incident had nothing to do with the actual animal."  Likewise, this isn't really relevant to the military base any more than Wikiality and Other Tripling Elephants is relevant to the elephant article.  Finally, note that I'm not attempting to prevent modification of the content; I just can't immediately remember collapse templates other than hat and hab.  Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

On the latter point, I've added some instructions to replace the default message. Prioryman (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
This section had grown in length to the point of having WP:TOPIC issues, but this article needs to pipe it to somewhere, as it is notable in its own right.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
No, it's quite definitely the thing the station is most famous for. And it's a thing it is actually famous for - it's been reported around the world in quite some depth, and the incident itself is the subject of ongoing questions in the French Parliament. SELFREF is not a licence to remove actually notorious incidents that have been widely covered in the general press in a serious manner in depth. A mystery-meat unexplained link in "see also" is a disservice to the reader, as this will be overwhelmingly the reason the general reader will be looking at the page - David Gerard (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The version in this article should be a summary, and leave the details to Censorship of Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I concur. A selfref violation would be to say "the French-language version of this article", or "translated into multiple other languages (though this version predates the affair)", or, more generally, to talk about the article if it hadn't attracted such media attention. (Clearly in almost any other case, referencing an article's deletion on another edition of Wikipedia would be a selfref issue; this, though, is already one of the most notable deletions in Wikipedia history.) However, I believe policy is fairly clear on the point that when Wikipedia-related material is legitimately relevant to a subject, it should be included in the article. Likewise, if something like this were to have happened here on En.WP, it'd be okay to write about it in the very same article, provided that the article never said "this article". — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Would there perhaps be scope for this section to be spun off into its own article, leaving summaries here and in Censorship of Wikipedia, where I note it's already summarised? Prioryman (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It's spun off into a section elsewhere, with a summary here. I think this will serve the reader - David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Assuming google translate is correct this suggests that they maintain that the article is illegal and the only reason it is still up is that the US authorities aren't cooperating:
http://www.pcinpact.com/news/82695-les-explications-manuel-valls-sur-affaire-dcri-wikipedia.htm
Geni (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I would summarise their statement as "waffle waffle obfuscate we did nothing wrong we love Wikipedia let's talk about something else now", rather than something that can be usefully summarised to anything so substantial as a position - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Here are the actual answers to questions in Parliament: [2][3][4] You could pick statements such as you suggest out of the fog, but the amount of fog surrounding them suggests they wouldn't want to be held very hard to them - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
seem to be waiting until the committee reports in November.Geni (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 17:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll take this review. I'm excited to be put on a French military watchlist. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


### Infobox and lede
There's some material in the lede (the mountain details and the ski resort) that isn't in the main text. I would add that to the infrastructure section, and remove the ski resort sentence from the lede.
Removed, since I couldn't find sources. Skyshifter talk 22:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd rephrase the sentence as In April 2013, the French interior intelligence agency DCRI pressured the president of Wikimedia France into deleting the French-language Wikipedia article about the station.
Much better, done Skyshifter talk 22:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The next sentence could also use some rephrasing, perhaps something like As a result of the controversy, the article temporarily became the most read page on the French Wikipedia, which was noted as an example of the Streisand effect.
Done Skyshifter talk 22:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


### History
Add "station" or "relay station" after semaphore telegraph
Done Skyshifter talk 22:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I would say "circa-1910s" for the postcard date - there's no evidence that it's specifically 1913, though it's pretty obviously from the 1910s or early 1920s.
Done Skyshifter talk 22:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


### Role
Might be nice to specify in which cardinal direction the main base is located.
Not sure if I can find a source for this. Skyshifter talk 22:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


### Infrastructure
The sentence reading Military staff... is a bit confusing. Do tracked vehicles not use the road?
Removed. Skyshifter talk 22:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd move the line about the number of personnel to the paragraph about the staff buildings.
Done Skyshifter talk 22:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


### Controversy over Wikipedia article
The sentence In April 2013... attracted attention from the French interior intelligence agency DCRI. isn't really accurate. The agency was clearly aware of the article before then, particularly since they attempted to have it deleted in March. I would recommend rewriting the first few sentences here to clarify the order of events.
Done Skyshifter talk 22:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Add {{clear}} so that the image doesn't squeeze the references
Done Skyshifter talk 22:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


### Other
Use {{Portal bar}} or similar - the current stack leaves a lot of whitespace
Done Skyshifter talk 22:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Add alt text to images
I am very bad with alt text... I've promoted GAs without them, not sure if it's required. Skyshifter talk 22:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
It's not required for GA review, but I strongly recommend it. It's the biggest step that any individual editor can make to make Wikipedia accessible. I've added it for you. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
@Skyshifter: Placing on hold since you haven't replied here yet. Please try to make the needed changes within 1 week. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Will check soon. Skyshifter talk 21:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: I've made changes to the article. Skyshifter talk 22:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks good! Passing now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

The large parabolic antennas, known locally as Mickey's ears, were replaced with the current two-antenna setup in 1991.
This is a recent minor change from Mickey's ears – that is, extending the blue from Mickey to cover ears.  I dislike it, on the grounds that a mouse and his ears are not quite the same thing, but what does the community say? —Tamfang (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Reverted that change. It looked odd to have the phrase italicized but only link one word but it was an instinctual decision to which I am not in the least attached. carry on! jengod (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)