A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 6, 2007, February 6, 2008, February 6, 2009, and February 6, 2010. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The same far right which in the future will reveal its real intentions with the slogan: "BETTER HITLER THAN BLUN!" and delivered its country to the nazis.
Hi Superjumbo! Concerning your change of dates format, I must tell you that I completely disagree with your move. Most will consider it without any importance, but if you bothered yourself to change it it shows that at least you do consider it with importance. Well, I must tell you that your argument "France uses international time" (international time? which country doesn't?) doesn't carry much weight. Date formating is only a personal preference. However, many users seems rather used to the February 6, 1934 date format. And we're on the English wikipedia. Personally, although I am not a native English speaker, I am used in English with this date formatting, and I see no reason to privilege your preferences over standard ones. Hence reversal of your page move, and soon reversal of your page formatting. Hope you don't see this as the beginning of an argument, the stakes are quite low, but you must understand that this only a question of personal preference which no logical argumentation will solve (unless, perhaps, the fact that most people are used to writing February 6, 1934 and not 6 February, 1934. We could also move the page to 6 of February, 1934, but I don't think that's the way to proceed.) Cheers! Tazmaniacs 17:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Very biased article as there is virtually no mention of the attack upon the marchers by the Communists and a hotch-potch of far-left groups, who also attacked the police violently. Unless the suggestion is that for the first time ever in European political history The Right attacked the polices, as well as each other. Ridiculous. Wikipedia is becoming a vehicle for The Left's disinformation. 86.154.104.134 ( talk) 19:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
This article states "On 9 February 1934, a socialist and communist counter-demonstration took place while Daladier was being replaced by Doumergue....while the SFIO socialist party and the communist party decided to call for a separate demonstration. However, at the initiative of the popular base of these movements, the demonstrations finally united themselves into one. Thus, this day marked a first tentative union between the socialists and the communists. It had at its core the anti-fascism shared by both Marxist parties". It is frequently asserted that Comintern kept in strict control of communist parties across Europe, and it was only in a Pravda article in May 1934 that the idea of socialist-Communist alliance was proposed from Comintern. Does the above extract imply that the French Communist Party went against the wishes of the Comintern? Could somebody please clarify the French communist party politics behind this. Thanks. 37.228.252.97 ( talk) 09:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
This article on a major event of French (and interwar European) political history would benefit from a significant rewrite.
Essentially it is a translation (and often a rather clumsy one) of an older, less developed version of the corresponding French page. As a result it carries over both stylistic or terminological issues that could/should be tweaked for an English-speaking, non-French reader, as well as somewhat outdated or oversimplified interpretations that do not quite tally with modern French scholarship.
By way of example, it includes a few inaccuracies: for instance, referring to the contemporary French lower house of parliament, the 'Chamber of Deputies', as the 'National Assembly': the National Assembly is the name for the modern French parliament (as a whole), not the parliament of the time; moreoer the events occurred at the location of one of the two seats of parliament. A minor issue, but indicative of the lack of rigour with which the article is currently written.
It also contains several value judgements: referring frequently to the 'fascist leagues' - modern historians are far more nuanced in applying the term, as the riots included representatives of a wider range of anti-parliamentary and anti-liberal groups, from Communists to actual Fascists, as well as several larger groups that are regarded as far-right but not fascist such as the Croix-de-Feu. Much scholarly debate has occurred on this question, and while there are arguments both ways the article simply does away with the nuance. It's an important distinction, because if the leagues were simply 'fascist', then we can argue that since fascism had little electoral success in France the riots were unrepresentative, and democracy was not under threat; but if they reflected a diffuse range of antiparliamentary ideologies, then the incident represents something more serious for the liberal-democratic system of the period.
It also suffers from an absence of explanatory detail in some areas, but an excess in others, carrying over details from the old French article that might not be strictly necessary for a non-French reader, while missing out contextual background information that a non-French reader probably needs.
In addition, the current version of the French article has been expanded into a comprehensive article on the topic, including significant use of empirical data (such as citations), and is well-referenced with a wide reading list of both published primary sources and scholarly works. It has a better grounding in modern scholarship on the subject, it provides a more factual, encyclopaedic overview including background, chronology, aftermath and legacy. Finally, it does a better job of directing the reader to the key primary and secondary works on which to begin further reading.
Consequently, I propose to rewrite the English version of the article using the French version as the basis. Moranete ( talk) 11:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 6, 2007, February 6, 2008, February 6, 2009, and February 6, 2010. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The same far right which in the future will reveal its real intentions with the slogan: "BETTER HITLER THAN BLUN!" and delivered its country to the nazis.
Hi Superjumbo! Concerning your change of dates format, I must tell you that I completely disagree with your move. Most will consider it without any importance, but if you bothered yourself to change it it shows that at least you do consider it with importance. Well, I must tell you that your argument "France uses international time" (international time? which country doesn't?) doesn't carry much weight. Date formating is only a personal preference. However, many users seems rather used to the February 6, 1934 date format. And we're on the English wikipedia. Personally, although I am not a native English speaker, I am used in English with this date formatting, and I see no reason to privilege your preferences over standard ones. Hence reversal of your page move, and soon reversal of your page formatting. Hope you don't see this as the beginning of an argument, the stakes are quite low, but you must understand that this only a question of personal preference which no logical argumentation will solve (unless, perhaps, the fact that most people are used to writing February 6, 1934 and not 6 February, 1934. We could also move the page to 6 of February, 1934, but I don't think that's the way to proceed.) Cheers! Tazmaniacs 17:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Very biased article as there is virtually no mention of the attack upon the marchers by the Communists and a hotch-potch of far-left groups, who also attacked the police violently. Unless the suggestion is that for the first time ever in European political history The Right attacked the polices, as well as each other. Ridiculous. Wikipedia is becoming a vehicle for The Left's disinformation. 86.154.104.134 ( talk) 19:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
This article states "On 9 February 1934, a socialist and communist counter-demonstration took place while Daladier was being replaced by Doumergue....while the SFIO socialist party and the communist party decided to call for a separate demonstration. However, at the initiative of the popular base of these movements, the demonstrations finally united themselves into one. Thus, this day marked a first tentative union between the socialists and the communists. It had at its core the anti-fascism shared by both Marxist parties". It is frequently asserted that Comintern kept in strict control of communist parties across Europe, and it was only in a Pravda article in May 1934 that the idea of socialist-Communist alliance was proposed from Comintern. Does the above extract imply that the French Communist Party went against the wishes of the Comintern? Could somebody please clarify the French communist party politics behind this. Thanks. 37.228.252.97 ( talk) 09:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
This article on a major event of French (and interwar European) political history would benefit from a significant rewrite.
Essentially it is a translation (and often a rather clumsy one) of an older, less developed version of the corresponding French page. As a result it carries over both stylistic or terminological issues that could/should be tweaked for an English-speaking, non-French reader, as well as somewhat outdated or oversimplified interpretations that do not quite tally with modern French scholarship.
By way of example, it includes a few inaccuracies: for instance, referring to the contemporary French lower house of parliament, the 'Chamber of Deputies', as the 'National Assembly': the National Assembly is the name for the modern French parliament (as a whole), not the parliament of the time; moreoer the events occurred at the location of one of the two seats of parliament. A minor issue, but indicative of the lack of rigour with which the article is currently written.
It also contains several value judgements: referring frequently to the 'fascist leagues' - modern historians are far more nuanced in applying the term, as the riots included representatives of a wider range of anti-parliamentary and anti-liberal groups, from Communists to actual Fascists, as well as several larger groups that are regarded as far-right but not fascist such as the Croix-de-Feu. Much scholarly debate has occurred on this question, and while there are arguments both ways the article simply does away with the nuance. It's an important distinction, because if the leagues were simply 'fascist', then we can argue that since fascism had little electoral success in France the riots were unrepresentative, and democracy was not under threat; but if they reflected a diffuse range of antiparliamentary ideologies, then the incident represents something more serious for the liberal-democratic system of the period.
It also suffers from an absence of explanatory detail in some areas, but an excess in others, carrying over details from the old French article that might not be strictly necessary for a non-French reader, while missing out contextual background information that a non-French reader probably needs.
In addition, the current version of the French article has been expanded into a comprehensive article on the topic, including significant use of empirical data (such as citations), and is well-referenced with a wide reading list of both published primary sources and scholarly works. It has a better grounding in modern scholarship on the subject, it provides a more factual, encyclopaedic overview including background, chronology, aftermath and legacy. Finally, it does a better job of directing the reader to the key primary and secondary works on which to begin further reading.
Consequently, I propose to rewrite the English version of the article using the French version as the basis. Moranete ( talk) 11:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)