Talk:Republican marches

Protest march category?

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)

It looks more like a protest to me also. Xharm (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's do it - Any concerns, let's discuss. KConWiki (talk) 03:25, 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)

I'd recommend adding Template:Infobox civil conflict.

Done. Note, the French article uses a protest infobox also. 64.179.63.62 (talk)

International

500+ people protested in Mexico City. [1] 128.83.205.65 (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

French flag

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)

Absence of U.S. President Barack Obama

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)

The absence of cabinet-level (and above) representatives from your country is only discussed in U.S. media, which can't be considered a benchmark for notability in this context. I can't find a single word of criticism in the reports of international media outlets. If you think it really is noteworthy, I would suggest changing the section headline to something that makes clear it's a domestic political discussion. And please, use indentation on talk pages. Rugbypouch (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I see the wikiwarriors just can't help themselves. Sigh. No wonder wikipedia is totally irrelevant. If it was Bush who hadn't showed, you probably would have created a whole page about it. But it's Obama and anything that might be construable as criticism (dread not!) is verboten. Have fun yodeling in your echo chamber I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.127.119 (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If you intend to contribute to Wikipedia, you should get acquainted with some of its policies, as for example WP:CIVIL. The fact that Obama did not attend is indeed on record, but WP:NOTNEWS: is it something people are likely to remember in three months? If you have reason to think it is notable, by all means, be WP:BOLD - but don't complain that your edits were reverted because unencyclopedic. (PS: edited for indentation) Tigraan (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well familiar with wikipedia's policies of blockheaded leftism and robotic lack of perspective. Been contributing to wikipedia for years now, and I see all my other informative edits are still up some 10 years later. The only reason I thought O's absence was notable is because many in the media and politics were mentioning it and considering it notable. Maybe if you spent some time outside your echo chamber you could see your actions as I see them, pedantic. Oops, did I say a naughty word on the internet?98.115.127.119 (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If you really are "well familiar" with WP policies, you apparently decided to ignore them. I had to indent your post as Rugbypouch asked you to do, and you have trouble with civility ("blockheaded", "pedantic"...). You may throw insults to your heart's content on the internet, but please keep it off the talk pages of WP - it is not constructive, and could easily earn you a topic ban.

Your claimed notability criterion ("many in the media and politics were mentioning it") runs into WP:NOTDIARY, which states among other things: Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities (...) can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia (...). This is not to say the event is not notable (personally, I think it is, and the article as it stands is fine on that point); but it walks on the edge of notability criteria, and insults usually have a counterproductive effect in arguments.

Now for a few irrelevant facts that could surprise you:

• I did not edit this article. I merely came to suggest a title change. Please stop adressing me (or anyone else for that matter) as if a single person was responsible for the content of the whole encyclopedia.
• Outside the "echo chamber" that the US media is, Obama not coming to France was footnotes in the French press and media. Most people could not care less. I suspect a significant percentage does not even know who is president of the US. That is precisely why I refrained from editing the article, having a very local view of the events.

Tigraan (talk) 09:57, 16 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)

Title ?

"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)

It was supposed to be a bit larger than just commemorating the victims. It was also a rally for free speech. Of course things are not clear since everything happened in a rush, and every politician right now is busy saying what he thinks protesters have said. I think "commemorative" in the title is slightly WP:POV.

You could scrap "January 2015" in any case - as for now, it is unambiguous, and it can always be changed later if further events require it.

I did not even think there could be confusion with republican/democrat, but you are right it should be avoided if possible.

An option could be "Je suis Charlie demonstrations" since it is the slogan that stuck. It is unambiguous and has a reasonable chance to remain so. It also avoids a generic title such as my original "10 and 11 January 2015 protests" which - though unambiguous - is not very informative. It would change slightly the topic to include some minor demonstrations that happened before Jan 10/11 but that's not a big deal.

Unless someone comes up with a reason to keep the title as is, I think it is a case of WP:BOLD to change it soon.

Tigraan (talk) 10:47, 15 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)

• I oppose any change. We don't have any articles called "Republican marches" that refer to "members of the Republican Party marching about something", and hence no disambiguation is necessary. The lead makes it clear what this article is about. This is the best possible title, and is cited in the lead to an English source. There is no better title. RGloucester — ☎ 23:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not one of disambiguation. I am ready to believe that "republican marches" refers to this event and this event only for anglo-saxon media (at least for now, and WP:TIND).

The issue is with naturalness though. Is this event named "republican marches" in preference to other denominations? The New York Times does not mention the word, neither does the Wall Street Journal, neither does CNN that calls it "unity rally" just as the BBC does...

None of the links in the lead section even use the words "republican march(es)". (The fact that it happened Place de la République is of course irrelevant !)

Oh, and "This is the best possible title...there is no better title." sounds quite definitive to me, barely one week after the events. :)

Tigraan (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• It seems better than the current title to me, but not much better. The article insists that is was an international phenomenon (though obviously much more followed in France). I guess Paris Peace March could do the trick if we focus the article on the officials' march, which did happen in Paris. What do you think ? Tigraan (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"Paris Peace March" is not used for this event. "Republican marches" is, as is cited in the lead. RGloucester — ☎ 16:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

French Republican marches (or French republican marches) seems like the best title to me. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• "French Peace Marches" do not match with these marches. they were not for peace, they were to support freedom of speech, freedom of press, and the refusal of Terrorism (and to tell the terrorists "F*** you, we are not afraid and we will fight for our values") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.66.45.202 (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Armenia and Turkey

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)

I could not find any relevant guidelines. Armenia is no problem, but deciding where to put Turkey is going to be a can of WP:POV: though most of the territory is in Asia, it could be argued that what matters is the geopolitical/cultural affiliation which is leaning towards Europe.

Unless there is some guideline about the criteria to break up long lists of personalities such as this one, I think the simplest solution is not to split by continents. For instance, it could be done by countries (in alphabetical order, with "international" at the beginning/end for NATO, EU etc.) or by function (eg "heads of state", "institutions", "other officials", "other personalities").

Tigraan (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"Notable exception"

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)

Largest since 1944 and biggest in history?

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)

//fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_manifestations_les_plus_importantes_en_France — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.254.178 (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Luz and the Republican marches

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)

I think this is correct, and the source seems to have been quoted quite selectively. I will have a look and see if I can make it more balanced. Formerip (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I've made an edit trying to summarise the views in the two sources used, and I've also used the original interviews (with Luz and Willem) rather than reports on the interviews. It should be noted, though, that both of these were conducted prior to the Republican marches, so their place in the article might be questionable. Formerip (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Fight against terrorism non sense

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150111213526/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_FRANCE_ATTACKS_RALLY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-11-12-51-46 to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_FRANCE_ATTACKS_RALLY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-11-12-51-46

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)