![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello all - I am going back and forth on whether or not to add this article to Category:Protest marches - The participants seemed to consider it a march or rally in favor of free speech, rather than a protest against the terrorists. But, if it looks like a protest march and smells like a protest march, it's probably a protest march. Any opinions on this? KConWiki ( talk) 02:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I would say this was a protest against Islamism, not a rally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siegler89 ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
500+ people protested in Mexico City. [1] 128.83.205.65 ( talk) 16:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Someone remind me what the French flag looks like, as I can't see enough references to them in the article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Like the Dutch flag turned sideways. LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.127.119 ( talk) 22:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a website called "Wikipedia" in which you can find the information in the article Flag_of_France LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.66.45.202 ( talk) 07:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a disagreement on if the absence of Barak Obama is important to the article, and if important, where it should be included in the article. Ideas? 64.179.63.62 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's an idea. If something is factual, relevant, notable and neutral, include it by all means. Here's another: imagine if it was Bush and ask yourself if the response to this inclusion would be different. Sorry, couldn't resist. Obama wasn't there and it should be able to say he wasn't there. Yes it mentions it later but seeing as he is the president of the U.S. and is the only name under "declined to attend", it bears to reason that it is notable enough to make it into the header. It's not like I wrote "he was watching a football game of the San Antonio Spurs instead" or "this is evidence that he doesn't care". Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral so on what grounds is it not OK to simply mention the fact that Obama wasn't there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.127.119 ( talk) 02:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I was watching the live coverage on the BBC and it did seem strange that there was no high level US representative, President, VP, Speaker of the House, etc. present and this has become an issue domestically in the USA, however this article isn't about American politics. Other major powers, China and the world's largest democracy India were represented at ambassadorial level too, so should we include their leaders in the 'declined to attend' section? Given the USA's historical role as 'leader of the free world' some mention of the lack of high level US representatives should be in the article but we should try to avoid unbalancing the article. Boreas74 Speak Softly 09:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The political bias of wikipedia is well known but this is ridiculous. Obama wasn't there, the record will show that and trying to bury it is truly, transparently desperate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.127.119 ( talk) 18:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"I suspect a significant percentage does not even know who is president of the US" oh if only that were so. Then they might believe you when you squawk "Bush's fault". Pedantic is the most charitable thing I could say about your behavior. 98.115.127.119 ( talk) 17:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I see the leftist losers still won't allow the facts to be shown. Pathetic! 98.115.127.119 ( talk) 18:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
"Republican marches" sounds weird to me. Every other protest in France is called a "republican march" or "republican rally" or something republican by its organizer (obviously, most of them do not even make the international news).
Clearly, this article is about one series of protests, translation of the title from French wiki ("10 and 11 January 2015 protests") looks better (though not optimal).
My thumb rule for naming articles, which reflects part of WP:NC, would be whatever the average Joe would type into a search engine to find documentation of the subject (plus disambiguation if needed). Did "republican marches" really stick in the Enlish-speaking world as a reference to that specific protest? Being French, I have a hard time assessing this, but my guess would be that it did not. Tigraan ( talk) 10:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Tigraan, as an American with a smattering of French, I would advise that "Republican marches" is not right for an English or American reader. We would assume that the phrase had something to do with the US Republican Party (which of course it doesn't). Terry Thorgaard ( talk) 18:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC) How about "Charlie Hebdo Commemorative March, January 2015"? Terry Thorgaard ( talk) 18:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
As an American who speaks enough bad French that DeGaul would smack me "Republican marches" would refer to members of the Republican Party marching about something. The title should be more English focused. How about French Peace Marches?-- Degen Earthfast ( talk) 22:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Both countries are listed under Europe but Armenia is in Asia and Turkey is bi continental with most territory and population in Asia. Is there a Wikipedia convention that these countries are listed as European or can they be moved? Boreas74 Speak Softly 08:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Re. my [2], and subsequent [3] and [4], I believe that MOS:OPED is fairly explicit in listing "notably" (whereof "notable exception" is just a grammatical variant IMO) as a word to avoid. Would people agree that the phrasing should be changed back so as not to use "notable exception"?
N.B. this thread is not about including/excluding the absence of President Obama more generally (for that, see above); it is solely about the phrase "notable exception".
It Is Me Here t / c 11:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The intro says that the rallies were "the largest public rallies in France since 1944... and also the biggest in French history." How can they be both the biggest in French history and smaller than the ones in 1944? I'm sure the intended meaning has been lost somewhere, can someone clean this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.11.137 ( talk) 17:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
reading the article we have the feeling that Luz oppose these marches... when in fact he join the Marches with the 4 millions others peoples. any way to make that clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.66.45.202 ( talk) 07:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a false link in a box.
The link is displayed as Fight against terrorism but it links to the article War against terror.
In fact the two ideas are quite different, and possibly opposed.
For instance War against terror might imply violent or military actions, while Fight against terrorism might cover more peacefully actions, such as those Republican marches.
Anyway, it looks more or less wrong to associate a War against terror link to this peaceful march, as long as the War against terror article is only focused on Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) which refers to the international military campaign that started after the September 11 attacks on the United States...
So I suggest to remove the link. 77.193.105.53 ( talk) 23:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Republican marches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello all - I am going back and forth on whether or not to add this article to Category:Protest marches - The participants seemed to consider it a march or rally in favor of free speech, rather than a protest against the terrorists. But, if it looks like a protest march and smells like a protest march, it's probably a protest march. Any opinions on this? KConWiki ( talk) 02:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I would say this was a protest against Islamism, not a rally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siegler89 ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
500+ people protested in Mexico City. [1] 128.83.205.65 ( talk) 16:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Someone remind me what the French flag looks like, as I can't see enough references to them in the article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Like the Dutch flag turned sideways. LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.127.119 ( talk) 22:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a website called "Wikipedia" in which you can find the information in the article Flag_of_France LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.66.45.202 ( talk) 07:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a disagreement on if the absence of Barak Obama is important to the article, and if important, where it should be included in the article. Ideas? 64.179.63.62 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's an idea. If something is factual, relevant, notable and neutral, include it by all means. Here's another: imagine if it was Bush and ask yourself if the response to this inclusion would be different. Sorry, couldn't resist. Obama wasn't there and it should be able to say he wasn't there. Yes it mentions it later but seeing as he is the president of the U.S. and is the only name under "declined to attend", it bears to reason that it is notable enough to make it into the header. It's not like I wrote "he was watching a football game of the San Antonio Spurs instead" or "this is evidence that he doesn't care". Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral so on what grounds is it not OK to simply mention the fact that Obama wasn't there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.127.119 ( talk) 02:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I was watching the live coverage on the BBC and it did seem strange that there was no high level US representative, President, VP, Speaker of the House, etc. present and this has become an issue domestically in the USA, however this article isn't about American politics. Other major powers, China and the world's largest democracy India were represented at ambassadorial level too, so should we include their leaders in the 'declined to attend' section? Given the USA's historical role as 'leader of the free world' some mention of the lack of high level US representatives should be in the article but we should try to avoid unbalancing the article. Boreas74 Speak Softly 09:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The political bias of wikipedia is well known but this is ridiculous. Obama wasn't there, the record will show that and trying to bury it is truly, transparently desperate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.127.119 ( talk) 18:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"I suspect a significant percentage does not even know who is president of the US" oh if only that were so. Then they might believe you when you squawk "Bush's fault". Pedantic is the most charitable thing I could say about your behavior. 98.115.127.119 ( talk) 17:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I see the leftist losers still won't allow the facts to be shown. Pathetic! 98.115.127.119 ( talk) 18:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
"Republican marches" sounds weird to me. Every other protest in France is called a "republican march" or "republican rally" or something republican by its organizer (obviously, most of them do not even make the international news).
Clearly, this article is about one series of protests, translation of the title from French wiki ("10 and 11 January 2015 protests") looks better (though not optimal).
My thumb rule for naming articles, which reflects part of WP:NC, would be whatever the average Joe would type into a search engine to find documentation of the subject (plus disambiguation if needed). Did "republican marches" really stick in the Enlish-speaking world as a reference to that specific protest? Being French, I have a hard time assessing this, but my guess would be that it did not. Tigraan ( talk) 10:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Tigraan, as an American with a smattering of French, I would advise that "Republican marches" is not right for an English or American reader. We would assume that the phrase had something to do with the US Republican Party (which of course it doesn't). Terry Thorgaard ( talk) 18:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC) How about "Charlie Hebdo Commemorative March, January 2015"? Terry Thorgaard ( talk) 18:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
As an American who speaks enough bad French that DeGaul would smack me "Republican marches" would refer to members of the Republican Party marching about something. The title should be more English focused. How about French Peace Marches?-- Degen Earthfast ( talk) 22:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Both countries are listed under Europe but Armenia is in Asia and Turkey is bi continental with most territory and population in Asia. Is there a Wikipedia convention that these countries are listed as European or can they be moved? Boreas74 Speak Softly 08:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Re. my [2], and subsequent [3] and [4], I believe that MOS:OPED is fairly explicit in listing "notably" (whereof "notable exception" is just a grammatical variant IMO) as a word to avoid. Would people agree that the phrasing should be changed back so as not to use "notable exception"?
N.B. this thread is not about including/excluding the absence of President Obama more generally (for that, see above); it is solely about the phrase "notable exception".
It Is Me Here t / c 11:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The intro says that the rallies were "the largest public rallies in France since 1944... and also the biggest in French history." How can they be both the biggest in French history and smaller than the ones in 1944? I'm sure the intended meaning has been lost somewhere, can someone clean this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.11.137 ( talk) 17:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
reading the article we have the feeling that Luz oppose these marches... when in fact he join the Marches with the 4 millions others peoples. any way to make that clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.66.45.202 ( talk) 07:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a false link in a box.
The link is displayed as Fight against terrorism but it links to the article War against terror.
In fact the two ideas are quite different, and possibly opposed.
For instance War against terror might imply violent or military actions, while Fight against terrorism might cover more peacefully actions, such as those Republican marches.
Anyway, it looks more or less wrong to associate a War against terror link to this peaceful march, as long as the War against terror article is only focused on Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) which refers to the international military campaign that started after the September 11 attacks on the United States...
So I suggest to remove the link. 77.193.105.53 ( talk) 23:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Republican marches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)