Jump to content

Talk:AUKUS/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Nuclear French submarines advantages keep being removed

The advantages of increased nuclear safety, not promoting proliferation, and allowing for fast refueling and repairing keep being removed. The disadvantages of US sealed designs have also been removed. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

As the French nuclear submarine option was not selected by Australia/AUKUS, probably more relevant to globalise the nuclear submarine article and expand the articles about the various French classes of submarines. Whizz40 (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
It is valid to criticize Australia going for UK/US technology unless France denied nuclear submarines to Australia. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
From what I understand, Australia did not consider the French submarines to be superior and therefore went with the US/UK. There's not much more to say that is relevant than that in this article. However, there is relevant content about French submarines missing from the nuclear submarines article and perhaps Nuclear marine propulsion. Better to focus on improving those article where the content definitely justifies inclusion. Whizz40 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
It does not matter if the US/UK submarines are better in some other way. Sealed, HEU submarines are not acceptable and an attempt should have been made to use French technology. Also, nuclear sharing may be a future option with US/UK combat systems, while France does not share nuclear weapons and AFAIK they have none for attack submarines, which may calm down the Chinese a bit. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Now Turkey wants to build submarines with Russia, but no details yet. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what turkey has to do with AUKUs or how it's relevant.2A01:598:A906:C3A5:1:2:4AD9:7923 (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
If Turkey ends up getting HEU submarines, it is relevant. It might also leave the door open to one day carrying Russian-owned nuclear weapons, the dual of Australia. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
And if it does, then we can reopen this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The time to close Pandora's Box is now. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
What has a greek myth got to do with French submarines?Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Selling nuclear attack submarines with French reactors and combat systems to Australia currently have 3 arguments against opening a Pandora's Box. Replacing them with current US/UK technology have 3 points in favor. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Seriously I have no idea what point you think you are making.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Trigenibinion, I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding you here - but your comments here read like your own (strong) POV, rather than comment on the article. What Turkey does with respect to submarines is totally irrelevant to this article. Mark83 (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It it's not a POV. If the US sells HEU submarines to Australia, it gives an excuse to everyone else to go for naval HEU. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Why? Why would they not also...this is all very wp:or. Unless RS discusses this we cannot.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The naval HEU issue is not wp:or, as my references have already shown. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
And do they mention Turkey (And AUKUS, do they connect these issues)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The risk concerns any country that does not possess their own nuclear weapons. I'm not saying we should talk about Turkey now, as they have not stated their plans. What should be mentioned or implied in the article is why going for US/UK combat systems and their current reactor tech is dangerous. The nuclear Tomahawk was retired (but it could come back), and the US is now defunding its replacement, which the current president called a "bad idea". One should not assume that future governments will behave responsibly.
Some newspaper articles now discuss the HEU problem in the context of AUKUS. The article already contains a proliferation issues section, but one editor has kept removing any content that implies that Australia should have tried to get French technology first. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Then we need to drop talking about Turkey.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Trigenibinion, at a glance I think you're an experienced editor so I shouldn't have to explain this to you - content must be verifiable. It seems like you are taking seperate issues and deciding they are interlinked without any reliable source to prove that. Mark83 (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Go read the French page, it has not been censored like this one. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
YOu read to really read wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The content that was removed from the English article only stated technical facts, as the French article does. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
That does not mean we are censoring this page, rather we may have different perspectives or priorities to those who edit the French page (which may even have different policies to the English Wiki). Talk about the edits you want to make, do not impune other editor's motives. Or fly off on tangents like the Turkish waste of everyone's time.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

So back on topic, please place here an RS that discusses the superior safety or reliability of the French subs Vs the ones Oz is now getting.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It is only one safety criterion, and I was not talking about the reliability, but rather the serviceability (attempting to do the same with HEU might be considered a security risk). I will look into it later. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

The ref Barrett was deleted, but was in use elsewhere.

In the Other Countries section under Other

The first instance of:
<ref name="Barrett" />

Should be replaced with:
<ref name="Barrett">{{cite news |last1=Barrett |first1=Chris |title=Australia's nuclear sub deal 'gravely undermines regional peace' says China |url=https://www.theage.com.au/world/asia/australia-s-nuclear-sub-deal-gravely-undermines-regional-peace-says-china-20210916-p58sbk.html |access-date=16 September 2021 |work=The Age |publisher=Nine Newspapers |date=16 September 2021 |archive-date=16 September 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210916084603/https://www.theage.com.au/world/asia/australia-s-nuclear-sub-deal-gravely-undermines-regional-peace-says-china-20210916-p58sbk.html |url-status=live }}</ref>


Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 Done DigitalChutney (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you 89.241.33.89 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on Background to French Response

Is the background to the French response relevant to the article? AustraliaRodeo (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

n.b. This appears to be the text being discussed. This note was added after start of RfC by : Pincrete (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes: background information about French interests in the region is necessary for an ordinary reader to understand the French response to AUKUS. Per cites in the article, for the French, security in the Indo-Pacific is an internal issue. That's a different context from simply a commercial submarine deal being cancelled. The average reader won't know this unless we include it in the article. Whizz40 (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. I agree with Whizz. Morgengave (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No: I agree with the reason for the original reversion of the background section that it's "irrelevant, as this is not aimed at the French, nor has it been suggested is is." The information about France given in the background is not relevant to the response, and can be looked up on the page about France. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC) — 178.202.82.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • No: I don't think the background information is relevant, it's not part of or relevant to France's response and similar background information is not being written for any of the other countries responses. The article is also about AUKUS and not about France. The background also introduces bias towards France and other European countries AustraliaRodeo (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC) — AustraliaRodeo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • There is no background given for any of the other countries, which have more citizens than France in the Indo-Pacific region. If this information is going to be part of the France section, then a similiar background should be added to every other country in the region specifying the number of people in the country. New Zealand also has 5 million people which is more than the number of French citizens in the region. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, except the average reader would know this, i.e. it's general knowledge so it's unnecessary in the article. There's important knowledge to understand the context of the French response that is not general knowledge and it is therefore of benefit to readers to include a short paragraph and image in this article. Whizz40 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. Yes, I have no problem with the position of the other countries being explained in more detail as long as it is not propaganda. I think removing this content is an example of anti-French bias. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. See WP:PA
Many of your recent edits appear to not have a NPOV, have anti-Australian bias and introduce bias towards France and European Countries.AustraliaRodeo (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. See WP:PA
I have no problem with Australians but with them being manipulated by media concentration. I also have a problem with sneaky biased editors. I have added content supporting both views (some of it removed). Trigenibinion (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Just saying France also has territories in the region isn't clear enough for the reader to understand what it means. The UK has overseas territories in the region but they are very limited, and not seen as part of the UK. So an average British reader would not understand the French have much more significant territories in the region and that they are seen as part of France. I doubt the average American reader would either. Therefore a significant portion of readers of this article would benefit from a few facts and a map to understand the circumstances that shape the French response to the pact, and its negotiation without their involvement (regardless of the cancellation of the submarine contract). Whizz40 (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No As I am unsure what we mean, the full history of French activities in the region, a history of the French nuclear program? We only need to know that they are pissed and why. As this is not aimed at the French we should not give an impression (and I think this content does that it is. After all, do we list all the UK's positions or Australias (or indeed the US)?Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Your edit [3] boldly removed context that a number of editors contributed to the article over time. My edit reverted that at which point it should be discussed but you have now unilaterally removed it again. WP:ONUS does not mean that you can do that. This RfC is a sensible process to establish consensus for it's inclusion or not. The context shouldn't be removed until the RfC is complete as your initial bold edit was reverted. Whizz40 (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Not true "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.", it is down to those wanting to include to get consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Also note, as the addition was reverted it was a breach of BRD to reinsert. BRD should have been followed after it was first removed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
That is a blatant misinterpretation of the sequence of events and WP:BRD. Whizz40 (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
It was added (bold) it was reverted (revert), Which part of that am I misrepresenting?Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Your edit [4] boldly removed content that a number of editors contributed to the article over time, i.e. which previously had consensus. That's fine, but my edit reverted that citing BRD at which point it should be discussed. This RfC is a sensible process to establish whether the consensus is for its inclusion or not, i.e. to address WP:ONUS. Following the BRD process, the change, i.e. the removal of the content, should not be done unless the RfC concludes that removal is the consensus. Whizz40 (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
This need to stop now. I removed content it was then down to those who wanted to include to make a case. That is policy, and that is my last word on this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
@Slatersteven:You have been selective with the article history. You started the BRD cycle with this edit. Not as you suggested with this edit. Your removal of text was then reverted and discussion should have taken place. But instead you edit warred it back to your version -- WP:BRD applies to removal or reinstatement, not just removal. Again you've been selective with that. In summary:
  • You've been misleading in your presentation of the chain of events.
  • You've misinterpreted or misquoted WP:BRD
  • And you've ended with "This need to stop now. I removed content it was then down to those who wanted to include to make a case. That is policy, and that is my last word on this" which is incredibly dismissive, immature, and without any factual basis. Mark83 (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
The material had been removed (and readded) before this, it is at that point BRD kicked in, when it was first removed. I have not misquoted WP:BRD, all quotes are just straight copy and pastes. I have said this needs to stop as we are talking about users not content and going round in circles repeating the same stuff over and over again.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, being led here from NPOVN, I think this background information seems important to the reader to understand France's reaction. I think it definitely should be included if the reliable sources mention it in connection with AUKUS, as several of them indeed do. Where the sources talk about France's involvement in the region but not in the context of AUKUS, the argument for including the information from those sources seems less strong (the sources from before AUKUS was announced, from 13 April 2021 and 21 October 2020, clearly fall into this latter category). —2d37 (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    Do RS make this connection, or is it wp:or?Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    "Do RS make this connection, or is it SYNTH?" is, I suppose, a question that should be seen in my comment as well. To expand on my answer several of them indeed do: specifically, the cited Euronews 2021-09-17, BFMTV.com 2021-09-16, Axios 2021-09-19, and RFI.fr 2021-09-21 sources do seem to consider it worthwhile to bring up France's Indo-Pacific presence in the context of AUKUS. Now, 3/4 of these are French or French-based, but here are some RS from AU, UK, and US finding this background information worth mentioning in connection with AUKUS:
    • Walden, Max (23 Sep 2021). "How can Australia repair its relationship with France after the AUKUS submarine row?". ABC News (Australia). What's more, the French government says 1.5 million of its citizens are in the Indo-Pacific. At least 500,000 live in New Caledonia and French Polynesia, right on Australia's doorstep. "France is actually very close geographically to Australia," Ms Watson-Lynn said. "The closest countries to Australia are PNG (Papua New Guinea), East Timor, Indonesia, and France, through New Caledonia."
    • "Aukus pact: France and US seek to mend rift". BBC News. 2021-09-23. France considers the Asia-Pacific region to be of key strategic and economic importance, with 1.65 million French citizens on islands including La Réunion, New Caledonia, Mayotte and French Polynesia.
    • DeYoung, Karen; Miller, Michael E.; Kuo, Lily (September 17, 2021). "Biden's submarine accord with Australia angers both France and China". The Washington Post. In expressing their outrage, French officials noted that, unlike Britain, France is an Indo-Pacific nation, with more than 2 million citizens in island territories across the two oceans and a robust military presence.
    —2d37 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    The problem is (as I see it) is that beyond saying "France is a Indo-Pacific nation" do they say that AUKUS impact this? What does this have to do with AUKUS?Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • If they do all we need to say is "Another consideration is the protection of Frances overseas possessions", one line is all we need.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    The problem is (as I see it) is that beytong saying "France is a
  • No: It's not relevant. I assume "cooperation established with Australia" in regards to "internal security" is referring to the Australian-French military relationship and possibly intelligence sharing. It implies that France will not cooperate with Australia in the future having atrociously cancelled a submarine deal with this irrevocably harming the relationship. Yet, no source says that France will not co-operate with Australia in future military exercises and/or will not share intelligence. I wasn't aware that France had a co-operation issue with "neighbouring countries" or how neighbouring countries are effected by a submarine deal in which Australia will have a more suitable submarine for the rise of Chinese influence in the area.--Melbguy05 (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes - That a major ally of the 3 participants and permanent member of the UN Secuirty Council was excluded from this is relevant, and the context is very relevant for an understanding of the wider geopolitical and economic issues. Mark83 (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Not at this level of detail. The anon above is correct: "The background is mostly not relevant, there's no need to list the number of French citizens or troops or the countries. It's enough just to say France also has territories in the indo pacific region without including the other irrelevant details."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No - Not in that much detail, it is relevant to have on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure all of it should be included here. Same argument I made in Talk:AUKUS#Separate_Page_for_Responses_to_AUKUS, have the basics covered here, but the main detail under the Australian-French submarine deal page. This is an article on an alliance, explaining in depth the strategic overlay of a country that was negatively impacted by one aspect of the alliance seems like a step too far away from the article subject — IVORK Talk 23:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, briefly as it is impossible to understand the French response here without some background and France is significant in its response and history in the region. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • NO, Beyond the unprecedented recall of Ambassadors (which is buried in a quote with no accompanying RS analysis), very little is likely to remain encyclopedic material, as right now we are regurgitating sensationalized news and heat of the moment statements. It looks more like seeking sources to match a viewpoint than writing an article. Let's see what scholars say 6 months to a year from now, rather than assuming French foreign relations have forever changed over a cancelled business transaction. Slywriter (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    The French get a billion $ cancellation fee and will just have to cop it, just like everybody has to cop actions from a much bigger partner. This Australian finds it incredible that everybody thinks the undemocratic way in which AUKUS was created is acceptable. Over 18 months they negotiated behind our backs because the knew the Australian population would reject AUKUS had they known in time. We are funding that with debt, too! Today they announced an extension - salami tactics never go out of fashion. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:B595:E707:A408:A278 (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, broadly, though I'm not sure that either the proposed text or heading is very good. The subject of the proposed text is mainly France's strategic interests and intentions in the region, it isn't really the background to AUKUS, which - for France - is mainly about broken promises, hurt pride and money. Secondly the text is a bit more pro-French partisan than neutral - one source says over 1.5 million French citizens in the area, WP VOICE is used to say nearly 2 million, which is not what the source says (the source has 2 French political figures claiming nearly two million). The claim that France is "focused on the security of its citizens in this area", reads as more of a Quai d'Orsay mission statement than a NPOV expressed WP fact. Also, the claim that AUKUS is "an internal security issue for France", may be poor translation, but reads as silly. A far-flung colonial outpost of France may legitimately be extremely important to France, but claiming it to be "an internal security issue" in WP:VOICE reads as being overstated, even if it may technically be partly correct as there is 'French soil' in the area. I believe the text could be re-written to constructively represent that France feels itself to have legitimate strategic concerns in the region beyond its economic and political concerns. Pincrete (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment [delisted] on the way to organise the countries in International Responses

What's the best way to organise the countries in the International Responses section that has a NPOV and is not biased towards any country? AustraliaRodeo (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

AustraliaRodeo, Not sure what you mean? What's at dispute here? Generally, simply listing the countries alphabetically (or sometimes chronologically by date of feedback) does a fine job. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
CaptainEek That's what we had before but it was reverted, and then people tried putting in all sort of categories and orders including categorising the countries into "Colonial Countries". Which is why I opened the RfC to get comments on the best way to organise it that's not biased and has a NpoV. There's also a few people wanting European countries to have a huge section and ignoring all the other countries responses AustraliaRodeo (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Give prominence to China and France as the "most impacted nations". For other nations, put them in alphabetical order and under the "other" section without headers in the table of contents, though omit responses that provide minimal useful context; an example of this might be Portugal's, which just says that it supports France. Summoned by the bot, but note that I was previously involved in this article and had pre-existing opinions on this questions BilledMammal (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I explained above the logical organization I had developed which AustraliaRodeo immediately reverted alleging vandalism. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • As is, members first, elevate China/France, the rest alphabetical. The other FVEY partners haven't said anything particularly of note to otherwise differentiate them — IVORK Talk 01:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The Agreement hasn't had any impact on France or any of the other countries apart from a contract with France being cancelled, I wouldn't say there are any countries that have actually been impacted by it at the present. Though that might change in the future. AustraliaRodeo (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Text that is veering into forum conversation territory collapsed below. See WP:NOTFORUM
The cancellation fee that Australia had to pay to France was substantial, given the situation that we have a housing deficit, an aged care crisis and some such like. That's an impact on Australians. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:386E:A0A0:2C12:7FC1 (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Alpahbeticaly. But I am unsure why China is not there. The only nations that ae relevant for their own sections are Oz, the UK the USA and France.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Members>China/France>Other Countries (Alphabetically) is the most rational way to order it. If for some reason another country becomes very impacted by this pact we can add them to the China/France bracket. BSMRD (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You cannot dissociate France from the EU. France is not fully sovereign and the EU will tend to protect its members. A consequence of the crisis may also be increased EU self-sufficiency. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You cannot dissociate France from NATO if a consequence of the crisis may be the weakening of NATO. That said, a Five Eyes bond is stronger than a NATO bond. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd be okay with Members>China/France>Other countries (alphabetically). Otherwise, purely alphabetically, or by date of response. There's more than one way to write this section. But it should not be France, France, and more France.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • As it is now seems most logical. The members in their own top-level section. Then Responses: China & France with subheadings, then Others ordered alphabetically. Best reflects the scale of coverage these reactions have received in sources. the wub "?!" 17:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:AUKUS/Archive_2&oldid=1249792401"