Talk:France and weapons of mass destruction

1044:

French nuclear programme "started after WWII" . You now seem to accept what I was saying - and what the article says - about the French lead in nuclear research BEFORE WWII and the French element in the Anglo-Canadian part of the Manhattan Project DURING WWII. The pre-war French effort was stage 1. The Montreal work was stage 2. De Gaulle's programme was stage 3 but he was out of office within a year. All the dozens of countries which launched nuclear programmes after the war had one eye on national defence - like de Gaulle - but only nine of them led to the production of weapons. In any case although the communist Frederick Joliot Curie built a first reactor in 1948 there was no way he was going to build a Bomb which might target Russia. Stage 4 was when Pierre Gillaumat took over from Frederick and set out his plan for nuclear energy in 1951 which led to the building of the Marcoule reactors. The Mendes-France decision in 1954 was stage 5 - and it was crucial. All sources (even boring old Encyclopaedia Britannica) agree that was the first unambiguous commitment to make French nuclear weapons. This is what the CNRS history says "la réunion inter-ministérielle du 26 décembre 1954 envisage la préparation d'un prototype d'arme nucléaire". The Suez collapse in 1956 and the return of De Gaulle in 1958 quickened the pace. The factual New Statesman cover article was a perfectly good source. It wasn't based on smoke and rumours but on old yellowing pieces of paper in a newly declassified file held in the National Archives in London. In those files is an official letter from Pierre Guillaumat head of the French nuclear programme detailing the nuclear materials which he needs. The rest of the file records the British meetings in response and the final agreement to supply the nuclear materials and expertise to France. In the sixteen months since the article was published nobody has challenged the authenticity of the letters. It would be difficult to think of a more authoritative source than the head of the French nuclear programme. The links between Dien Bien Phu and the decision to build a protoype Bomb seem obvious to me and to many others who have looked at the issue over the years. For starters Mendes-France would not even have been in position as Prime Minister to make that decision on 26th December if Dien Bien Phu hadn't caused Laniel's government to fall in June and Mendes France to be appointed. Secondly there were factions in the French government who felt that the Americans had unfairly denied them the support of nuclear weapons in Vietnam and therefore the French would now need to build their own Bombs. Thirdly there is Guillaumat's letter written to the British written at the height of the battle. Fourthly the French Chiefs of Staff were told to start looking at what they would need for a home grown Force de Frappe within weeks of Dien Bien Phu. Your statement "There is no link between Indochina and the nuclear program" does not stand up. After all the subsequent decolonisation it is difficult to realise the impact that Dien Bien Phu had in 1954. A colony had defeated a supposed major world power for the first time. But there are other factors in the mix - German rearmament and Algeria amongst others - which is precisely why the main article does not go so far as to say explicitly "It was the loss of Indo China which convinced Pierre Mendes France at the end of 1954 to go ahead with the Bomb". I only mentioned that in the discussion on this Talk page. It appears to me and to many others including NuclearWeaponArchive, Wolf Mendl et al to be true but in my view the evidence for the conclusion is not quite strong enough to put that in the main article. If you think I am motivated by some desire to put down the French or exaggerate British achievements I can assure you that is not the case. (If only we had a rail system like yours) I repeat that I am not suggesting that British help made a huge difference to the French nuclear programme. If you look back at all my edits to France and Weapons of Mass Destruction I think you will see that. Unfortunately I cannot look back at the many articles which you have contributed to because you constantly change your username. That is often an indication of a vandal but I am going to be charitable and just assume you can't remember your passwords.

984:

did you remove the paragraphs from the article? Of course France was already involved in nuclear research - and not just after WW2. I regard France as being the leading country in nuclear research BEFORE WW2 and of course French scientists played their part DURING WW2 as part of the British-Canadian contribution to the Manhattan Project. The post war nuclear programme started to set in place the necessary infrastructure for a Bomb programme - as the request to the UK shows - but no formal decision to go for a Bomb was taken before December 26th 1954. You need to have another look at your GDP figures - I suggest OECD or Eurostat - no serious economist has suggested French GDP was bigger than the UK's in the 1950s. In 1954 for instance the UK GDP was 50% bigger than France's - according to the OECD's World Economy: Historical Statistics. UK GDP was bigger than France's through the 50s and 60s - France overtook UK and stayed ahead through the 70s, 80s and 90s and UK only overtook France again this century. Please source any of your statements or explain exactly which of my sources you think are "fantasy" beofre vandalising articles.

890:

which was broadcast on BBC Newsnight in March and picked up by thousands of outlets TV/Radio/Newspapers/Internet. Noone has challenged the valildity of any of the documents which were supplied by various branches of UK government. The French story was not surprisingly overlooked in the bigger picture about Britain and Israel. The BBC and New Statesman saw all the documents before the story was published. You're welcome to have copies of any of the documents that you request but given that you think everything's a conspiracy theory if you tell me what you want I can give you the exact reference and you can directly request those documents from UKAEA/MoD yourself. For instance the original request from France to Britain is in the UKAEA Heavy Water 1952-57 file titled "Translation of a letter to Sir E Plowden from Messrs, Guillaumat & Perrin dated May 6th 1954" As I have already had the documents declassified this should be a very swift routine process.

2109:. For Pakistan, there isn't even that. Of course, a separate article that covers all of the WMDs can be created, but I think it is better to move the history to the nuclear weapons article since that is most of the article's content. Non-nuclear WMDs are a notable topic, but they pale in comparison with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can obliterate a city of millions in seconds, and whether a country has them has enormous geopolitical implications, which can't be said for non-nuclear WMDs. I think that deserves an article of its own. I propose the naming "Country and nuclear weapons", but I am open to other suggestions. 1004:: the last of these terms is not what we could qualify as peaceful civilian goal. One of the leading scientist, (in fact, the high commisionner), of the CEA was Frederic Joliot, the one whose researches where funded by the french ministry of defence in 1939 to explore the explosive capacity of uranium; he deposed some patents on this topic with Halban and Kowarski. Considering all this facts, it is clear that stating "the war in Indochina is the event which pushed french gov to go ahead with the bomb" is an more an opinion or a joke than a fact, on a sensitive subject already over-saturated with rumors. 970:"It was the loss of Indo China which convinced Pierre Mendes France at the end of 1954 to go ahead with the Bomb programme in the hope that France would still be regarded as a great power. " : No, this is purely bullshit. There is strictly not a link between Indochina and french nuclear program, which started after WWII. There is also no link whatsoever between France great power status (with a GDP at that time superior to UK GDP, a nice growth and so on...) and Indochina ! This article furthermore rely on fantasy sources... Someone to clean this mess up ? 1055:

weapons. In fact they did the opposite; by working with the Eisenhower administration, they attempted to make it as difficult as possible for France to develop nuclear weapons. The other issue I have with your argument is that Britain was hardly at the forefront of nuclear technology after the war, and only became acquainted with the technology after the US loosened restrictions on the transfer nuclear technology. However, that would have made them 'newbies' in the field--not experts; hardly the position of assisting others.

1000:

highly debatable on political points, like the one we are discussing about; the "romantic" style of the article add another problem to the validity of this website as a good source on political/historical angles. De Gaulle created the CEA on october 1945 in order to give France not only a civil nuclear program, but also a nice place to a military program, which had a troubled history and experienced incredible delays; it explains why De Gaulle "ordonnance" of 1945 states that the CEA

279: 758: 565: 269: 251: 937:

Marcoule but these did not come on stream till 1956. That is why the French wanted small quantities of British plutonium for preliminary weapons design work in 1954-55. They also wanted the designs of those reactors checked by the British. It was the loss of Indo China which convinced Pierre Mendes France at the end of 1954 to go ahead with the Bomb programme in the hope that France would still be regarded as a great power.

916:(linked in the Knowledge article) states that "Official approval for developing nuclear weapons was not authorized until late 1954, even though by then the necessary plutonium production program was well advanced." If France first extracted plutonium in 1949 and had an established plutonium production program by, at the latest, late 1954, why the need for British plutonium, much less enriched uranium? 581: 220: 450: 627: 609: 1013:"The single source given cites "secret documents" and unnamed informants as a basis for these claims. While the story they picture may (or not) reflect the true story, I don't think it's good policy to base an article on what sounds like a conspiracy theory. Anyone thinking of reverting should consider maybe trying to find independent confirmation or corroboration of these claims. " 637: 522: 511: 500: 489: 190: 1395:, there are links there to the articles in question (as well as to equivalent pages for the US, USSR, Pakistan, India and North Korea). Perhaps they, too, need integration into more general articles. The last step in the hierarchy is that those pages contain links to the test series level for each of the countries, on which individual tests are specified. 711: 390: 359: 1126:

correspondence between the French and British authorities which has now been declassified. The French weren't asking Britain to supply them with a finished atom bomb at that time they were asking for help to speed up their military and civil nuclear programmes which they thought would maintain their Great Power status.

834:"He and his crew were physically assaulted by the French military. Although this charge was later denied, it was captured on camera by a crew member. The subsequent litigation against the French government, and the corresponding publicity, played a major part in the French decision to end their nuclear testing programme." 901:

mistaken, it's lifted directly from the article, although I suppose this would fall under the definition of fair use. Regarding evidence, if you have any link pointing to independent corroboration, that would be great. I must confess I don't care enough to go to the trouble of contacting a foreign government agency. :-)

478: 2238:

The main change I would support is for cases where there is no significant disagreement in independent RS about the possession of nuclear weapons, we use the same format as when nuclear weapons are acknowledged. I believe the current titles are messy, confusing, and contravene the NPOV principle that

1146:

Oh, please. "autonomy from the USA"? Show me one instance of the USA attempting to annex France, from WWII to today. What you actually mean by "autonomy" is precisely "prestige" or "being regarded as a great power", that is, having distance between it and the USA's foreign policies. It's silly things

950:

What I meant is that it's not clear from the Knowledge article what significance the British assistance, namely providing plutonium and enriched uranium, has, in light of France's successful extraction of plutonium 5 years earlier. The information you provided in your reply should be presented in the

855:

In May 1954 the French were losing the war in Indochina against Ho Chi Minh. At the height of the decisive battle at Dien Bien Phu France's nuclear bosses sent a request to the chairman of the British Atomic Energy Authority. It was a shopping list of items that would help them build nuclear weapons,

2434:

There's a difference between "nuclear weapons of XX" and "XX and nuclear weapons." The articles with the former formulation are entirely about the known stockpiles of those countries. They are not about broader issues of global nuclear weapons policy, as the alternative title might imply. The one

1208:

The article "France and wmd" and "Force de frappe" talk about two aspect of the same subject, one of it is the relation of France and wmd and the second one is about the wmds themselves. I think we should merge the Force de frappe article into a section of this article. The choice of the destination

1033:

What is great with Knowledge is that the average teenager can claim a total control over an article to publish anything he wants, blocking edition to what he like or not. Great, but nor really serious. I don't want to launch an edit war, so, you win, and this article will still continue to propagate

999:

No. There is no link between Indochina and the nuclear program, no "serious historian" can claim that. The only source about that is nuclearweaponarchive.org, but they themselves lacks credible sources and are not neutral on this topic. Their articles are excellent on some technical aspects, but are

912:

A few more things. First, the New Statesman claims the UK gave France a few grams of plutonium, among other, unspecified items, but the importance of this is unclear considering that, according to the article, "he first French reactor went critical in 1948 and first plutonium was extracted in 1949".

1228:

Esurnir - there is also a good site on the French Knowledge about the Force de Frappe - I have no objection to merging all three articles - in English and French - for that matter we could reintegrate Gerboise Bleue and Operation Canopus as well - but I am not sure how that would fit with rules of

1054:

I do take issue with your single source. Your argument appears to be completely invalidated by Keith Baum's publication of "Two's Company, Three's a Crowd: The Eisenhower Administration, France and Nuclear Weapons". In essence, England did not help France with the development of nuclear power or

1043:

ANOTHER PATIENT EXPLANATION... I wish I was still a teenager but I'm happy to see you've abandoned your original claims. You claimed that France in the 1950s had "a GDP at that time superior to UK GDP" . I assume you now realise along with the rest of us that that was untrue. You claimed that the

2493:

We don’t need a primary-source public inventory to know which states have nuclear weapons or use the presumed possession of them as a nuclear deterrent. The subject of nuclear weapons is inherently about deterrence and a posture relative to other states’ nuclear capability, so I would be fine with

1135:

I agree that this Dien bien phu part is a kinda joke. Linking a nuclear program to a far and not profitable colony is somewhat laughable. The author seems to forgot that French governments, like their counterparts, may have rational reasons to act, not only "prestige" or "being regarded as a great

983:

Sorry to be factual but it was the loss of Indo China which finally convinced Pierre Mendes France to go ahead with the Bomb at a cabinet meeting on 26 December 1954 although I am sure there were many other factors. However the article does not make this claim - it is only on this talk page so why

932:

We can all agree that a longer article on French WMD would be better. The way to achieve this is not by cutting what little is already there but by adding more sections perhaps written by the people who have created the excellent French version of this site. I only dealt with the area on which I

921:

Also, a quick google shows the French nuclear program to have a long and pretty well documented history. I don't think claims of British assistance, justified though they may be, should take up almost half the Knowledge article. The Indochina War bit seems especially off-topic. You appear to care

889:

I've reinstated the paragraphs. I agree with you about conspiracy theories but this isn't one of them. The papers were all released to the BBC by UKAEA/MoD et.c under Freedom of Information. It was a very small part of the much larger story on Britain's help for Israel's Nuclear Weapons programme

1400:

This hierarchy is not, of course, negated by the merge, though the clearness of it will not be as apparent, but that seems a minor point. If someone decides to perform the merge, my only request of it is that the table in the merged-in page be placed with a header such that a direct link to the

936:

You say you don't understand plutonium or the significance of the Indo China War so let me explain. The French had experimentally extracted minute quantities of plutonium in the late 1940s and the "program was well advanced" in the sense that they had committed to building production reactors at

900:

I googled for details and didn't really find anything to support those claims except stories directly related to the New Statesman article. In any case, I think you should at least rephrase the passage, because as it is now, it follows awkwardly (IMO) from the previous paragraph. And, unless I'm

867:

According to one source, this not only helped the French get their military plutonium reactor at Marcoule into operation quickly but it also averted a disaster, for the British found defects which could have caused a catastrophic explosion at the Rhone Valley site. The same source says that when

861:

Before the letter even arrived the French had lost the battle and the war but later that year the French prime minister, Pierre Mendes France, made the formal decision to build the atomic bomb. Britain agreed to supply the requested nuclear materials, including enriched uranium. Among the most

879:

The single source given cites "secret documents" and unnamed informants as a basis for these claims. While the story they picture may (or not) reflect the true story, I don't think it's good policy to base an article on what sounds like a conspiracy theory. Anyone thinking of reverting should

1125:

My friend you have a strange sense of humour. If you read the discussion above and the New Statesman article which is cited - you can just read the last bit which deals with the French if you find it too onerous to read the whole thing - you will realise that this is all from the original

819:"The skipper, David McTaggart, was beaten and severely injured by members of the French military." Such a sentence may be misleading without context. Was McTaggart beaten when helpless, or did he try to resist arrest? Do we have other testimonies apart from McTaggart's on this? 2203:. As with previous comment, there is a difference between WMD and nuclear weapons. There could be a series of articles XX and nuclear weapons, but some of those would have to be narrower than the existing XX and WMD articles, which would need to remain as separate articles. 2105:– Trying to get some consistency in the naming. Regarding the articles curretly having "weapons of mass destruction" in the title, most or all of the content is about nuclear weapons, with a passing mention of non-nuclear WMDs. For example, there is a short section at 2414:

I have crossed out the articles covering WMDs and leave the ones that seem to have consensus to move: i.e, the ones for the US, UK and Israel. I will create a new article for the remaining countries covering just nuclear weapons after the move request is closed.

2146:. It is good to use consistent format, but some of these articles are about the broader topic, and ought to be titled as such. If there’s a reason to do it, then the NW section can be split off from WMD, summary style, and we’d have both versions. In the naming 1218:

What has been the practice for other nations on Knowledge? Does the US get its own article like this and another article on its nuclear strategic capabilities? If the latter is the case, then the status quo should remain, otherwise there'd be nothing wrong with

1440:

The hierarchy will be be maintained by the redirects. I agree that each testing programme warrants its own article, but at present, only lists exist. Merge doesn't prevent the future creation of articles under the same titles, and indeed I would encourage it.

1019:

A single source with "secret document" and "unnamed informant" is NOT a valid source, but clearly is a fantasy one. This is hypothesis added to hypothesis; a nice mental construction, a nice scenario for Lost, Heroes or Veronica Mars, but this is not reality.

2601:

I am afraid I don't understand your comment. Do you oppose the move of the articles covering nuclear weapons for the US, UK and Israel? If so, could you explain the reason? The proposal as it stands now doesn't involve any article covering WMDs in general.

1390:

My only concern, as principle author of the pages (France, Great Britain and China) that are being petitioned to be merged into the larger articles, is that there is a hierarchical architecture built with the smaller articles. By accessing the article

1751: 153: 856:

including a sample quantity of plutonium "so we can take the steps preparatory to the utilisation of our own plutonium". Britain had exploded its own bomb less than two years earlier and so they realised the significance of the request.

572: 369: 1023:

This article is not yours, it is a collective work. Some people here edited this article three or four times, deleting some higly fantasmatic paragraphs, but each time you reversed it because you don't seem to understand that :

1115:

this section should be removed, it is based on a biaised rumor. antother point is it was the american COS that offered the french to use a nuclear bomb at dien bien phu but the french refused, as did eisenhower and churchill.

588: 373: 204: 1752:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080413233434/http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france-priorities_1/disarmament_1109/regulation-of-the-international-arms-trade_5613/france-and-the-chemical-weapons-convention_9113.html

310: 1317:"A fission device ignited a lithium 6 deuteride secondary inside a jacket of highly enriched uranium to create a 2.6 megaton blast which left the whole atoll uninhabitable because of radioactive contamination." 1791: 996:

1097: 1755: 1801: 44: 873:

There remained France's request for plutonium. In 1955 Britain agreed to export ten grams but "we would not tell the US that we were going to give the French plutonium nor about any similar cases".

2349:

if there is any guideline of what to do in cases like this. Setting those cases aside, do you agree with the name "X country and nuclear weapons" for the moves where there is no change of scope?

1136:

power" or other childish reasons teached to 4th-grade students, but most probably "national interest", "self-preservation in cold war times against the USSR", and maybe "autonomy from the USA"

147: 1771: 1086:

and the Morrocan border. rumors are about chemical warfare dev among others and that the base was still active after the algerian independence. does anyone has reliable infos regarding this?

2345:

I understand the concerns about re-scoping, but as mentioned in the nomination, the idea was to move the articles to "nuclear weapons" so as to better preserve the history. I have asked at

2650: 335: 2670: 2477:

The government of Israel is not a reliable source, so what they say is not as important as what reliable sources say. And they unambiguously say that Israel has nuclear weapons.

2680: 2449:

I don't think any country has a public inventory of their nuclear weapons, so there is opacity for all cases. I can't see how Israel's case is different in any meaningful way.

1811: 2665: 1835: 341: 1792:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090531052930/http://www.lamontagne.fr/editions_locales/montlucon/les_victimes_des_essais_nucleaires_enfin_reconnues%40CARGNjFdJSsHFh8MBxg-.html

2222:. It is better if the title of the articles listed here should be country name first then nuclear weapons rather than country name first then weapons of mass destruction. 1781: 1756:

http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france-priorities_1/disarmament_1109/regulation-of-the-international-arms-trade_5613/france-and-the-chemical-weapons-convention_9113.html

2675: 2278:

Yes so there is no need for the weird circumlocution in the article titles. Just "France's weapons of mass destruction" or "nuclear weapons of Israel" would be better. (

463: 440: 402: 2655: 2645: 2264:

All the countries in the request have nuclear weapons, there is overwhelming evidence for all of them, including from nuclear tests, which is covered in the articles.

1802:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090328131610/http://www.france24.com/en/20090324-govt-earmarks-10-million-euros-compensate-nuclear-test-victims-france-algeria-polynesia

1795: 2520:. All pages suggested to rename are about all types of WMD, not just the nuclear weapons. This proposal has nothing to do with consistent naming. Just the opposite. 2174: 940:

Factual articles in the New Statesman are a perfectly good source and I have also offered you a way of independently verifying any facts which you are unsure of.

1973: 1887: 1883: 1869: 1673: 1669: 1655: 1553: 1549: 1535: 933:

have expertise and which has only recently been revealed. I am of course not sugggesting that British help was a major factor in the French Bomb. It was not.

449: 305: 1805: 1772:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100221081508/http://www.france24.com/en/20090324-four-decades-french-nuclear-tests-atomic-bomb-gerboise-bleue-algeria-polynesia

1392: 2573:

the request is about moving the articles that only cover nuclear weapons. The article covering WMDs are crossed out and no longer part of the move request.

2690: 2066: 683: 794:

that is the current destination of this link could be the Fernando Pereira mentioned in this entry. One died in 1972, the other led a revolution in 2003.

2660: 430: 79: 1641: 1631: 1775: 922:

about the article, so I'll leave it up to you to present the possible British ascendency of the French nuclear program in a more appropriate manner.

862:

important parts of the agreement was an arrangement for the British to check the blueprints and construction of French plutonium production reactors.

168: 2092: 1491: 301: 292: 256: 135: 689: 2463:

Israel's opacity is distinct and fundamental. It won't say whether or not it has nuclear weapons. All the other states have openly tested them.

2435:

with the latter formulation is Israel, whose ambiguous/opaque policy about whether it has nuclear weapons seems to call for different wording.

2299: 2106: 2029: 1994: 1735: 1615: 1465: 1372: 1291: 1240: 397: 364: 24: 1209:

article is based about the fact that the other title is in french and France and WMD seems to be include in some sort of X and WMD series. --

2695: 2640: 2383: 2079: 2042: 2017: 1349: 1148: 406: 85: 1812:

https://web.archive.org/web/20121020221105/http://www.france24.com/en/20090522-france-denies-reparations-victims-nuclear-tests-1960s-algeria

2685: 2379: 2006: 1845: 1836:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090531054402/http://www.france24.com/en/20090527-nuclear-compensation-bill-disappoints-victims-france-justice

1062: 1958:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

2178: 1782:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090124092525/http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/france/politique/0,,3784844,00-mise-eau-terrible-devant-sarkozy-.html

1761: 1481: 874: 129: 1229:

the Military History Project - maybe you need to ask them. I'm only interested in the content I don't care what heading it comes under.

1170: 1865:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1815: 1651:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

659: 1839: 1163:

Get your facts straight, France never left Nato. Oh, and about annexion, isn't it silly that the surname of UK is the 51st state?

125: 1796:

http://www.lamontagne.fr/editions_locales/montlucon/les_victimes_des_essais_nucleaires_enfin_reconnues%40CARGNjFdJSsHFh8MBxg-.html

1365: 1009:"Please source any of your statements or explain exactly which of my sources you think are "fantasy" beofre vandalising articles." 772: 1785: 1384: 1186: 99: 30: 175: 2346: 1011:

Why these paragraphs are a piece of fantasy, X-Files or BS ? Ok, but this was already nicely written by another contributor:

104: 20: 1806:

http://www.france24.com/en/20090324-govt-earmarks-10-million-euros-compensate-nuclear-test-victims-france-algeria-polynesia

2627:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2541: 2525: 74: 1423:

There is an article hierarchy here, and both the testing and the development nuclear weapons warrant their own articles.

2555:

WMDs and Nuclear Weapons are two different things and both are equally relevant for their mention in the article title.

2391: 2283: 2244: 2131: 1930: 1716: 1596: 650: 614: 231: 300:

content on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the

297: 65: 1265:, and the latter kept a sub-article of France & WMD. France & nuclear weapons is at least as much related as 141: 2054: 1642:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070925235810/http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/60823/571529/file/SAHARA.pdf

1632:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070925235810/http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/60823/571529/file/SAHARA.pdf

1287: 1282:

Seeing consensus here and the need to update the article(s) to reflect recent annuoncement about force size, I was

1262: 1244: 768: 1776:

http://www.france24.com/en/20090324-four-decades-french-nuclear-tests-atomic-bomb-gerboise-bleue-algeria-polynesia

1949: 1855: 1492:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120209094841/http://library.bullerdc.govt.nz/cgi-bin/library/liinquiry?acc=00000711

837: 806: 764: 284: 1886:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1672:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1552:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2537: 2521: 1353: 1152: 1066: 1002:"pursue technical and scientific research for use of atomic energy in science, industry, and national defense." 219: 1147:

like this and leaving NATO because they couldn't deal with being second to USA that France gets made fun of.

2127: 1921: 1743: 1707: 1623: 1587: 1473: 1266: 1174: 401:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 109: 1645: 1635: 1230: 1127: 1082:

found infos regarding a top secret base in french algeria called "B2-Namous" and located somewhere between

1045: 985: 962: 941: 891: 974:

12:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC) For these reasons, removed the four paragraph for lacking any reliable source...

736: 1495: 1959: 1905:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1893: 1846:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060110012010/http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/France/index_2701.html

1691:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1679: 1571:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1559: 1501: 1381: 1328: 1299: 1137: 975: 971: 952: 923: 902: 881: 237: 199: 2611: 2596: 2582: 2564: 2545: 2529: 2508: 2486: 2472: 2458: 2444: 2424: 2402: 2373: 2358: 2316: 2294: 2273: 2255: 2231: 2212: 2191: 2168: 2136: 1986: 1935: 1742:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1721: 1622:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1601: 1472:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1450: 1432: 1415: 1357: 1332: 1303: 1273: 1251: 1233: 1223: 1213: 1197: 1178: 1156: 1140: 1130: 1120: 1104: 1101: 1090: 1087: 1070: 1048: 1038: 1035: 988: 978: 965: 955: 944: 926: 905: 894: 884: 840: 823: 809: 800: 1762:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150429192508/http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/nuke.html

1526: 1482:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090124170238/http://www.disarmsecure.org/publications/papers/index.html

1446: 1345: 1166: 1058: 2536:

Oh, I see that such pages were already striked through and no longer a part of the ongoing RfC. OK.

2227: 1411: 1324: 868:

Charles de Gaulle came to power in 1958 he personally thanked Harold Macmillan for the team's work.

820: 744: 161: 55: 1962:

after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1185:

Then again, perhaps the French wanted a nuclear weapons program because they were tired of being "

829:"Mr McTaggart returned to the atoll, but was captured and beaten up by French military officers." 658:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2147: 1982: 1823: 1816:

http://www.france24.com/en/20090522-france-denies-reparations-victims-nuclear-tests-1960s-algeria

1428: 1194: 70: 1890:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1849: 1840:

http://www.france24.com/en/20090527-nuclear-compensation-bill-disappoints-victims-france-justice

1676:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1556:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1906: 1692: 1572: 2592: 2560: 2363:

In cases where the subject of the article only concerns nuclear weapons I support the move. —

1829: 1117: 1096:

it was real. i saw it in an archive video featuing the defense minister: video availble here:

836:

I once saw a picture of his black eye on television. He reportedly could not see for a while.

833: 743:

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |

51: 1786:

http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/france/politique/0,,3784844,00-mise-eau-terrible-devant-sarkozy-.html

1765: 1485: 1406:

I will place pointers to the comments here on the other discussions for merging these pages.

1322: 2607: 2578: 2503: 2482: 2454: 2420: 2387: 2368: 2354: 2311: 2279: 2269: 2240: 2186: 2163: 2114: 1376: 1295: 1083: 791: 723: 1913: 1699: 1579: 914: 2468: 2440: 2303: 2208: 1401:

table can be established. More than that, I have no particular stance against the merges.

1270: 1258: 1220: 1442: 880:

consider maybe trying to find independent confirmation or corroboration of these claims.

2587:

Historically, they kept WMDs so I still don't feel like supporting the proposed moves.

2223: 1872:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1658:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1538:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1407: 1283: 564: 1912:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1698:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1578:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

830: 268: 250: 2634: 1978: 1424: 1190: 642: 2588: 2570: 2556: 2302:, for example, is chiefly not about Canada’s weapons of mass destruction. See also 1210: 797: 1030:- a single new statesman article based on smoke and rumors is not a valid source. 2603: 2574: 2500: 2478: 2450: 2416: 2396: 2365: 2350: 2340: 2308: 2288: 2265: 2261: 2249: 2183: 2160: 2110: 1879: 1665: 1545: 1248: 2464: 2436: 2333: 2204: 1878:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1856:

https://web.archive.org/web/20081121020036/http://www.point-zero-penelope.org/

1664:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1544:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 961:

Added in French hydrogen bomb and reverted nuclear to atomic where necessary.

632: 274: 626: 608: 580: 1646:

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/60823/571529/file/SAHARA.pdf

1636:

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/60823/571529/file/SAHARA.pdf

189: 1027:- there is no link between war in Indochina and France's nuke program; 731:

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

1859: 1496:

http://library.bullerdc.govt.nz/cgi-bin/library/liinquiry?acc=00000711

1502:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110723050155/http://www.mururoavet.com/

1239:

I would have thought that the two article more suited to merging are

655: 2378:

I oppose that move and support "Nuclear weapons of X country", per

1321:

This does not seem to be supported by the IAEA report posted here:

389: 358: 735:] The anchor (#Estimated worldwide nuclear stockpiles) has been 1371:

Subject does not require a separate article; can be merged into

752: 705: 213: 184: 15: 1850:

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/france/index_2701.html

1505: 1511:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

579: 563: 448: 1830:

http://actualite.el-annabi.com/article.php3?id_article=9477

208:. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. 1766:

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/nuke.html

1746:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1626:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1486:

http://www.disarmsecure.org/publications/papers/index.html

1476:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1342:

Why are we quoting wikileaks here in the wikipedia??????

304:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the 763:

On 6 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be

2097: 2084: 2071: 2059: 2047: 2034: 2022: 2011: 1999: 1739: 1619: 1469: 2107:

France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Non-nuclear_WMD

160: 2181:, and plenty of articles or subcategories in each. — 654:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 461:

This article has been checked against the following

1882:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1668:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1548:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 546: 460: 688:This article has not yet received a rating on the 340:This article has not yet received a rating on the 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2175:Category:Weapons of mass destruction by country 951:article itself and not on the discussion page. 2651:Unknown-importance history of science articles 1868:This message was posted before February 2018. 1654:This message was posted before February 2018. 1534:This message was posted before February 2018. 2671:European military history task force articles 1312:Atmospheric tests at Mururoa & Fangataufa 311:History of Science Collaboration of the Month 174: 8: 2239:we should avoid stating facts as opinions. ( 1393:Worldwide nuclear testing counts and summary 2681:French military history task force articles 2067:North Korea and weapons of mass destruction 217: 2666:C-Class European military history articles 1948:The following is a closed discussion of a 1734:I have just modified 10 external links on 603: 543: 457: 353: 245: 1614:I have just modified 2 external links on 1464:I have just modified 3 external links on 851:I removed the following four paragraphs: 296:, an attempt to improve and organize the 2676:C-Class French military history articles 2093:Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction 395:This article is within the scope of the 320:Knowledge:WikiProject History of Science 2656:WikiProject History of Science articles 2646:Start-Class history of science articles 605: 355: 323:Template:WikiProject History of Science 247: 2300:Canada and weapons of mass destruction 2030:France and weapons of mass destruction 1995:Russia and weapons of mass destruction 1736:France and weapons of mass destruction 1616:France and weapons of mass destruction 1466:France and weapons of mass destruction 1373:France and weapons of mass destruction 1363: 1292:France and weapons of mass destruction 1241:France and weapons of mass destruction 415:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history 405:. To use this banner, please see the 196:France and weapons of mass destruction 25:France and weapons of mass destruction 2384:Nuclear weapons of the United Kingdom 2080:India and weapons of mass destruction 2043:China and weapons of mass destruction 2018:Nuclear weapons of the United Kingdom 1523:to let others know (documentation at 1100:, so my source was actually serious. 418:Template:WikiProject Military history 7: 2380:Nuclear weapons of the United States 2007:Nuclear weapons of the United States 1967:The result of the move request was: 648:This article is within the scope of 573:European military history task force 2179:Category:Nuclear weapons by country 1860:http://www.point-zero-penelope.org/ 236:It is of interest to the following 202:by Knowledge editors, which is now 23:for discussing improvements to the 2691:Unknown-importance France articles 2494:all of those articles were titles 2023:United Kingdom and nuclear weapons 1034:absolute bullshit. Nice work ! ;) 589:French military history task force 14: 2661:C-Class military history articles 2012:United States and nuclear weapons 1738:. Please take a moment to review 1618:. Please take a moment to review 1468:. Please take a moment to review 2623:The discussion above is closed. 1111:the dien bien phu part is a joke 756: 709: 635: 625: 607: 520: 509: 498: 487: 476: 388: 357: 277: 267: 249: 218: 188: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 2117:) 00:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC) 2072:North Korea and nuclear weapons 1366:France's nuclear testing series 1187:cheese eating surrender monkeys 435:This article has been rated as 2347:Knowledge talk:Requested moves 1974:closed by non-admin page mover 1941:Requested move 6 December 2023 308:. You can also help with the 293:History of Science WikiProject 1: 2612:18:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC) 2597:14:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC) 2583:14:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC) 2565:12:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC) 2546:04:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC) 2530:01:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC) 2509:17:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC) 2487:12:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC) 2473:21:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC) 2459:23:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC) 2445:23:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC) 2425:22:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC) 2403:03:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC) 2374:03:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC) 2359:23:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC) 2317:03:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC) 2295:23:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC) 2274:23:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC) 2137:14:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC) 1987:05:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC) 1602:12:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC) 1105:10:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 1091:22:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 662:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 2696:All WikiProject France pages 2641:Old requests for peer review 2256:00:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC) 2232:09:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC) 2213:20:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC) 2192:14:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC) 2169:19:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC) 2098:Pakistan and nuclear weapons 1416:09:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC) 1333:16:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC) 1198:22:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 1157:12:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC) 668:Knowledge:WikiProject France 398:Military history WikiProject 290:This article is part of the 2686:Start-Class France articles 1936:06:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC) 1722:20:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1385:10:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 1274:07:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC) 1269:than to "France & WMD". 671:Template:WikiProject France 326:history of science articles 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 2712: 2060:Israel and nuclear weapons 2055:Nuclear weapons and Israel 2035:France and nuclear weapons 2000:Russia and nuclear weapons 1899:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1731:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1685:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1611:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1565:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1506:http://www.mururoavet.com/ 1461:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1358:14:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC) 1304:20:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1288:France and nuclear weapons 1263:France and nuclear weapons 1245:France and nuclear weapons 1131:09:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC) 1121:22:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 790:It is impossible that the 769:France and nuclear weapons 690:project's importance scale 481:Referencing and citation: 342:project's importance scale 2085:India and nuclear weapons 2048:China and nuclear weapons 1141:12:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 1078:B2-Namous top secret base 1071:14:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC) 1049:13:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1039:19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 989:11:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 979:13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 687: 620: 587: 571: 542: 434: 421:military history articles 383: 339: 285:History of science portal 262: 244: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2625:Please do not modify it. 1955:Please do not modify it. 1451:11:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC) 1433:06:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC) 1179:16:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC) 1098:ESSAIS CHIMIQUES ALGERIE 966:07:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 841:16:01, 23 May 2004 (UTC) 824:15:24, 23 May 2004 (UTC) 810:15:20, 23 May 2004 (UTC) 801:20:35, 22 May 2004 (UTC) 2173:Please note there is a 1727:External links modified 1607:External links modified 1457:External links modified 1267:Nuclear power in France 1252:23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 1234:21:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 1224:15:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 1214:15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 956:17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 945:07:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 927:06:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 906:05:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 895:17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 885:05:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 547:Associated task forces: 492:Coverage and accuracy: 838:Get-back-world-respect 807:Get-back-world-respect 737:deleted by other users 584: 568: 525:Supporting materials: 453: 226:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 583: 567: 452: 100:Neutral point of view 1880:regular verification 1666:regular verification 1546:regular verification 1364:Proposed merge with 1261:should be merged in 105:No original research 2538:My very best wishes 2522:My very best wishes 1870:After February 2018 1656:After February 2018 1536:After February 2018 1515:parameter below to 514:Grammar and style: 467:for B-class status: 2128:Maddy from Celeste 1924:InternetArchiveBot 1875:InternetArchiveBot 1710:InternetArchiveBot 1661:InternetArchiveBot 1590:InternetArchiveBot 1541:InternetArchiveBot 651:WikiProject France 585: 569: 454: 403:list of open tasks 317:History of Science 298:history of science 257:History of Science 232:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 2177:that contained a 2139: 1977: 1900: 1686: 1566: 1348:comment added by 1169:comment added by 1061:comment added by 847:operation vulture 783: 782: 751: 750: 726:in most browsers. 704: 703: 700: 699: 696: 695: 602: 601: 598: 597: 594: 593: 538: 537: 483:criterion not met 439:on the project's 407:full instructions 352: 351: 348: 347: 212: 211: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2703: 2399: 2344: 2337: 2291: 2252: 2118: 2100: 2087: 2074: 2062: 2050: 2037: 2025: 2014: 2002: 1971: 1957: 1934: 1925: 1898: 1897: 1876: 1827: 1720: 1711: 1684: 1683: 1662: 1600: 1591: 1564: 1563: 1542: 1530: 1379: 1360: 1231:Newsnightmeirion 1204:Merging proposal 1181: 1128:Newsnightmeirion 1073: 1046:Newsnightmeirion 986:Newsnightmeirion 963:Newsnightmeirion 942:Newsnightmeirion 892:Newsnightmeirion 792:Fernando Pereira 786:Fernando Pereira 771:. The result of 760: 759: 753: 745:Reporting errors 713: 712: 706: 676: 675: 672: 669: 666: 645: 640: 639: 638: 629: 622: 621: 611: 604: 554: 544: 528: 524: 523: 517: 513: 512: 506: 502: 501: 495: 491: 490: 484: 480: 479: 458: 423: 422: 419: 416: 413: 412:Military history 392: 385: 384: 379: 376: 365:Military history 361: 354: 328: 327: 324: 321: 318: 287: 282: 281: 280: 271: 264: 263: 253: 246: 229: 223: 222: 214: 192: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2711: 2710: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2397: 2338: 2331: 2304:nuclear sharing 2289: 2250: 2096: 2083: 2070: 2058: 2046: 2033: 2021: 2010: 1998: 1953: 1943: 1928: 1923: 1891: 1884:have permission 1874: 1821: 1744:this simple FaQ 1729: 1714: 1709: 1677: 1670:have permission 1660: 1624:this simple FaQ 1609: 1594: 1589: 1557: 1550:have permission 1540: 1524: 1474:this simple FaQ 1459: 1445:(or Hrothulf) ( 1377: 1369: 1350:190.227.163.100 1343: 1340: 1314: 1259:Force de frappe 1206: 1164: 1149:121.108.242.207 1113: 1080: 1056: 849: 817: 815:David McTaggart 788: 757: 747: 729: 728: 727: 710: 674:France articles 673: 670: 667: 664: 663: 641: 636: 634: 552: 526: 521: 515: 510: 504: 499: 493: 488: 482: 477: 420: 417: 414: 411: 410: 377: 367: 325: 322: 319: 316: 315: 283: 278: 276: 230:on Knowledge's 227: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2709: 2707: 2699: 2698: 2693: 2688: 2683: 2678: 2673: 2668: 2663: 2658: 2653: 2648: 2643: 2633: 2632: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2549: 2548: 2533: 2532: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2428: 2427: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2376: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2235: 2234: 2216: 2215: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2103: 2102: 2089: 2076: 2063: 2052: 2039: 2026: 2015: 2004: 1990: 1965: 1964: 1950:requested move 1944: 1942: 1939: 1918: 1917: 1910: 1863: 1862: 1854:Added archive 1852: 1844:Added archive 1842: 1834:Added archive 1832: 1818: 1810:Added archive 1808: 1800:Added archive 1798: 1790:Added archive 1788: 1780:Added archive 1778: 1770:Added archive 1768: 1760:Added archive 1758: 1750:Added archive 1728: 1725: 1704: 1703: 1696: 1649: 1648: 1640:Added archive 1638: 1630:Added archive 1608: 1605: 1584: 1583: 1576: 1509: 1508: 1500:Added archive 1498: 1490:Added archive 1488: 1480:Added archive 1458: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1435: 1418: 1403: 1402: 1397: 1396: 1368: 1362: 1339: 1336: 1313: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1277: 1276: 1238: 1205: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1162: 1160: 1159: 1112: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1079: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1063:143.115.159.53 993: 959: 958: 930: 929: 918: 917: 909: 908: 877: 876: 870: 869: 864: 863: 858: 857: 848: 845: 844: 843: 821:David.Monniaux 816: 813: 787: 784: 781: 780: 773:the discussion 761: 749: 748: 742: 741: 740: 724:case-sensitive 718: 717: 716: 714: 702: 701: 698: 697: 694: 693: 686: 680: 679: 677: 660:the discussion 647: 646: 630: 618: 617: 612: 600: 599: 596: 595: 592: 591: 586: 576: 575: 570: 560: 559: 557: 555: 549: 548: 540: 539: 536: 535: 533: 531: 530: 529: 518: 507: 496: 485: 471: 470: 468: 455: 445: 444: 433: 427: 426: 424: 393: 381: 380: 362: 350: 349: 346: 345: 338: 332: 331: 329: 289: 288: 272: 260: 259: 254: 242: 241: 235: 224: 210: 209: 193: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2708: 2697: 2694: 2692: 2689: 2687: 2684: 2682: 2679: 2677: 2674: 2672: 2669: 2667: 2664: 2662: 2659: 2657: 2654: 2652: 2649: 2647: 2644: 2642: 2639: 2638: 2636: 2626: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2551: 2550: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2534: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2516: 2510: 2507: 2505: 2502: 2497: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2433: 2430: 2429: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2413: 2410: 2409: 2404: 2401: 2400: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2375: 2372: 2370: 2367: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2342: 2335: 2329: 2326: 2318: 2315: 2313: 2310: 2305: 2301: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2293: 2292: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2254: 2253: 2246: 2242: 2237: 2236: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2218: 2217: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2199: 2198: 2193: 2190: 2188: 2185: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2167: 2165: 2162: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2138: 2135: 2133: 2129: 2124: 2123: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2101: 2099: 2094: 2090: 2088: 2086: 2081: 2077: 2075: 2073: 2068: 2064: 2061: 2056: 2053: 2051: 2049: 2044: 2040: 2038: 2036: 2031: 2027: 2024: 2019: 2016: 2013: 2008: 2005: 2003: 2001: 1996: 1992: 1991: 1989: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1975: 1970: 1963: 1961: 1956: 1951: 1946: 1945: 1940: 1938: 1937: 1932: 1927: 1926: 1915: 1911: 1908: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1895: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1871: 1866: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1831: 1825: 1819: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1732: 1726: 1724: 1723: 1718: 1713: 1712: 1701: 1697: 1694: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1681: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1657: 1652: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1612: 1606: 1604: 1603: 1598: 1593: 1592: 1581: 1577: 1574: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1561: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1537: 1532: 1528: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1462: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1439: 1436: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1419: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1404: 1399: 1398: 1394: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1383: 1382: 1380: 1374: 1367: 1361: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1337: 1335: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1323: 1319: 1318: 1311: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1236: 1235: 1232: 1226: 1225: 1222: 1216: 1215: 1212: 1203: 1199: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1139: 1138:90.41.148.222 1133: 1132: 1129: 1123: 1122: 1119: 1110: 1106: 1103: 1102:Cliché Online 1099: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1089: 1088:Cliché Online 1085: 1084:Colomb Béchar 1077: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1047: 1041: 1040: 1037: 1031: 1028: 1025: 1021: 1016: 1014: 1010: 1005: 1003: 998: 991: 990: 987: 981: 980: 977: 976:90.41.148.222 973: 972:90.41.148.222 968: 967: 964: 957: 954: 953:24.201.30.153 949: 948: 947: 946: 943: 938: 934: 928: 925: 924:24.201.30.153 920: 919: 915: 913:Furthermore, 911: 910: 907: 904: 903:24.201.30.153 899: 898: 897: 896: 893: 887: 886: 883: 882:24.201.30.153 875: 872: 871: 866: 865: 860: 859: 854: 853: 852: 846: 842: 839: 835: 832: 828: 827: 826: 825: 822: 814: 812: 811: 808: 803: 802: 799: 795: 793: 785: 778: 774: 770: 766: 762: 755: 754: 746: 738: 734: 733: 732: 725: 721: 715: 708: 707: 691: 685: 682: 681: 678: 661: 657: 653: 652: 644: 643:France portal 633: 631: 628: 624: 623: 619: 616: 613: 610: 606: 590: 582: 578: 577: 574: 566: 562: 561: 558: 556: 551: 550: 545: 541: 534: 532: 527:criterion met 519: 516:criterion met 508: 505:criterion met 497: 494:criterion met 486: 475: 474: 473: 472: 469: 466: 465: 459: 456: 451: 447: 446: 442: 441:quality scale 438: 432: 429: 428: 425: 408: 404: 400: 399: 394: 391: 387: 386: 382: 375: 371: 366: 363: 360: 356: 343: 337: 334: 333: 330: 313: 312: 307: 303: 299: 295: 294: 286: 275: 273: 270: 266: 265: 261: 258: 255: 252: 248: 243: 239: 233: 225: 221: 216: 215: 207: 206: 201: 197: 194: 191: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2624: 2552: 2517: 2499: 2495: 2432:Still Oppose 2431: 2411: 2395: 2364: 2327: 2307: 2287: 2248: 2219: 2200: 2182: 2159: 2155: 2154:comes after 2151: 2143: 2125: 2121: 2120: 2104: 2091: 2078: 2065: 2041: 2028: 1993: 1968: 1966: 1954: 1947: 1922: 1919: 1894:source check 1873: 1867: 1864: 1733: 1730: 1708: 1705: 1680:source check 1659: 1653: 1650: 1613: 1610: 1588: 1585: 1560:source check 1539: 1533: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1510: 1463: 1460: 1437: 1420: 1375: 1370: 1341: 1320: 1316: 1315: 1237: 1227: 1217: 1207: 1171:83.115.28.42 1161: 1134: 1124: 1118:Shame On You 1114: 1081: 1042: 1036:90.36.78.180 1032: 1029: 1026: 1022: 1017: 1012: 1008: 1006: 1001: 995: 992: 982: 969: 960: 939: 935: 931: 888: 878: 850: 818: 804: 796: 789: 776: 730: 722:Anchors are 719: 649: 462: 436: 396: 309: 302:project page 291: 238:WikiProjects 203: 195: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 2152:consistency 2148:WP:CRITERIA 1960:move review 1527:Sourcecheck 1344:—Preceding 1296:Madcoverboy 1286:and merged 1165:—Preceding 1057:—Preceding 503:Structure: 228:Start-class 200:peer review 198:received a 148:free images 31:not a forum 2635:Categories 2496:XX and n.w 2122:Relisting. 1969:not moved. 1931:Report bug 1717:Report bug 1597:Report bug 1378:Cheers AKS 1271:Tazmaniacs 1257:Disagree. 1221:UberCryxic 306:discussion 2224:KevinNov3 2156:precision 1914:this tool 1907:this tool 1824:dead link 1700:this tool 1693:this tool 1580:this tool 1573:this tool 1408:SkoreKeep 1338:wikileaks 997:factors". 777:not moved 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2386:, etc. ( 2132:WAVEDASH 1979:Lightoil 1920:Cheers.— 1706:Cheers.— 1586:Cheers.— 1425:Hawkeye7 1346:unsigned 1325:Poolcode 1219:merging. 1191:Rickyrab 1167:unsigned 1059:unsigned 464:criteria 370:European 205:archived 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2589:Dympies 2571:Dympies 2557:Dympies 2501:Michael 2412:Comment 2366:Michael 2328:Comment 2309:Michael 2220:Support 2184:Michael 2161:Michael 1828:tag to 1740:my edit 1620:my edit 1513:checked 1470:my edit 1443:Hroðulf 1438:Support 1284:WP:BOLD 1211:Esurnir 1189:". — 805:fixed. 798:Mihoshi 739:before. 437:C-class 378:C‑class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2604:Vpab15 2575:Vpab15 2553:Oppose 2518:Oppose 2479:Vpab15 2451:Vpab15 2417:Vpab15 2398:buidhe 2351:Vpab15 2341:Mzajac 2290:buidhe 2266:Vpab15 2262:Buidhe 2251:buidhe 2201:Oppose 2144:Oppose 2111:Vpab15 1820:Added 1521:failed 1421:Oppose 1249:Mombas 1018:=: --> 665:France 656:France 615:France 374:French 234:scale. 126:Google 2465:NPguy 2437:NPguy 2334:NPguy 2205:NPguy 1290:into 1243:with 765:moved 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2608:talk 2593:talk 2579:talk 2561:talk 2542:talk 2526:talk 2498:. — 2483:talk 2469:talk 2455:talk 2441:talk 2421:talk 2355:talk 2306:. — 2270:talk 2228:talk 2209:talk 2158:. — 2115:talk 1983:talk 1517:true 1447:Talk 1429:talk 1412:talk 1354:talk 1329:talk 1300:talk 1195:Talk 1175:talk 1153:talk 1067:talk 994:1) " 775:was 720:Tip: 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 2126:-- 1888:RfC 1858:to 1848:to 1838:to 1814:to 1804:to 1794:to 1784:to 1774:to 1764:to 1754:to 1674:RfC 1644:to 1634:to 1554:RfC 1531:). 1519:or 1504:to 1494:to 1484:to 1015::D 1007:2) 831:BBC 767:to 684:??? 336:??? 176:TWL 2637:: 2610:) 2595:) 2581:) 2563:) 2544:) 2528:) 2485:) 2471:) 2457:) 2443:) 2423:) 2394:) 2390:· 2382:, 2357:) 2330:. 2286:) 2282:· 2272:) 2247:) 2243:· 2230:) 2211:) 2150:, 2119:— 2095:→ 2082:→ 2069:→ 2057:→ 2045:→ 2032:→ 2020:→ 2009:→ 1997:→ 1985:) 1952:. 1901:. 1896:}} 1892:{{ 1826:}} 1822:{{ 1687:. 1682:}} 1678:{{ 1567:. 1562:}} 1558:{{ 1529:}} 1525:{{ 1449:) 1441:-- 1431:) 1414:) 1356:) 1331:) 1302:) 1294:. 1193:| 1177:) 1155:) 1069:) 553:/ 372:/ 368:: 156:) 54:; 2606:( 2591:( 2577:( 2569:@ 2559:( 2540:( 2524:( 2506:. 2504:Z 2481:( 2467:( 2453:( 2439:( 2419:( 2392:c 2388:t 2371:. 2369:Z 2353:( 2343:: 2339:@ 2336:: 2332:@ 2314:. 2312:Z 2284:c 2280:t 2268:( 2260:@ 2245:c 2241:t 2226:( 2207:( 2189:. 2187:Z 2166:. 2164:Z 2134:) 2130:( 2113:( 1981:( 1976:) 1972:( 1933:) 1929:( 1916:. 1909:. 1719:) 1715:( 1702:. 1695:. 1599:) 1595:( 1582:. 1575:. 1427:( 1410:( 1352:( 1327:( 1298:( 1247:. 1173:( 1151:( 1065:( 779:. 692:. 443:. 431:C 409:. 344:. 314:. 240:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index