This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
I have just modified one external link on
May 1968 events in France. 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).
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.
-Under the paving stones, the beach!
-Beneath the pavement, the beach!
-Under the paving stones you'll find sand!
-Under the paving stones, the clear path to the beach!
Which is the best non litteral translation?
Say in the article, it's the Parisian pavement of the streets, and the pavement stones were put out of the pavement and used as weapons by rioters.
And they have been removed since this time, and replaced by concrete pavement to avoid this. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.91.248.85 (
talk)
08:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Requested move 15 October 2019
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Moved to
May 68. Consensus to move the page away from its current title is clear; there is some disagreement as to the best target, but May 68 has the most support, and is stylistically distinct enough to serve as the primary topic of that term.
BD2412T20:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I agree "civil unrest" is better than "events", but I'm not sure the best format of the title (e.g., "May 1968 French civil unrest" or "French unrest of 1968" or something else). Do we have other articles or categories like this, such that there is a
WP:TITLECON argument? –
Levivich16:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Revert to
May 1968 in France, the former title before somebody decided to clarify the article was about events rather than... non-events? Things that didn't happen? There's no need to specify events or civil unrest or anything, since a lot of stuff happened that was all tied together.
SnowFire (
talk)
17:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep as is Events is a French philosophical term which has been made so by the French philosopher
Michel Foucault. It is one of Foucault's most basic philosophical/historical concepts. In fact, I believe that Foucault's own consciousness about the term/concept may have been crystallized in his own mind precisely by the "May 1968 events in France" (no pun intended), to which he was a witness and also one of the active participants. The consciousness of events as one of the basic units of history is a welcome addition to the vocabulary of the philosophy of history that comes to us from the May 1968 events in France and from Foucault's writing after them, and I suggest the term be kept in the title here as an homage to the French social consciousness and activism since the French Revolution and to the event-based history and philosophy of Michel Foucault.
warshy(¥¥)17:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I think the purpose of a title is to
identify the topic to readers, not pay homage in some oblique way to social consciousness and activism ... history and philosophy. The English word events doesn't have any such philosophical significance that I know of, so Foucault's use of the term in French seems irrelevant. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
02:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
According to
Michel Foucault: A Research Companion, the event [...] is not a particular being that can be pinned down and identified in space and time [...] For Foucault, the event is [...] a kind of relational being, an outstanding and unsettled matter, which appears as it establishes connections across time and space (p. 88). Not only is this a highly idiosyncratic use of the word and therefore
fairly abstruse jargon, it doesn't describe the "events" of the article, which can in fact be "identified in space and time". In fact, May 1968 ... in France indicates both directly. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
02:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support
May 68 (or May '68 with apostrophe, if that is somehow better) per
common usage in sources (and my comment above) with a hatnote to the standard and global
May 1968. I'd even argue that "May 1968" more often refers to the French events/unrest than the month itself but I don't know what cascading problems that would cause with templates and whatnot. There are several English-language books published before the rise of Wikipedia that refer to this topic as simply "May 68" (no apostrophe). Secondarily, I think
France in May 1968 is preferable to
May 1968 in France as natural disambiguation, given that we're talking about a time in a place and not a place in a time. I'm not necessarily opposed to the other proposals, but I think this is just a matter of whether we can feasibly use the terms that our sources indeed use. czar14:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
"May 68" are the headlines, which suggests that's the most recognizable. (It's also shorter, which I'd argue makes it more natural.) –
Levivich00:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I'd argue the opposite; headlines are written to grab readers' attention, not define a topic. They also have to work within artificial length constraints, which makes them prone to abbreviating:
"PM" for Prime Minister,
"Gov." for Governor, etc. Relating more to this topic, the 1999 Seattle WTO protests are often abbreviated to just
"'99 (WTO) Protests" or similar. Headlines are written by copy editors, not journalists, which is why we don't cite the headline, we cite the article itself. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
01:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
headlines are written to grab readers' attention == recognizable. Sure, we don't use headlines as a source for a citation of a fact in an article. But when we're trying to determine which name is the most recognizable, common, and natural, headlines and titles are exactly where we should be looking. When we ask, "What should our article say in the body?", the answer is: what RSes say in their body. When we ask, "How should the article be structured?", we look to see how our RSes are structured. When we ask, "What should the title be?", we should look to see what our RSes use in their titles. Our title reflects their title. Our structure reflects their structure. Our body reflects their body. It's almost like a Wikipedia prayer
"May 68" is what many editors think is the shortest, most recognizable name for that event. And those are the same editors who exercise the editorial control that makes an RS reliable. –
Levivich01:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: while I understand the rationale for a move to May 68 (with or without an apostrophe), it seems to fail at least two
naming criteria in being less recognizable for English readers and easily confused with the topic May 1968 in general. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but this just seems
too ambiguous. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
11:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Flags
Just browsing here from another article, is there any reason why the flags of the different sides have a different shade of blue? This hasn't been mentioned in the archive. I don't know if there was any difference between the two, and if there was, it's hardly as distinct as the flags of the two ideological sides in 20th-century Spain, or the two sides in modern Belarus.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
19:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)reply
POV of "Worker strikes" section
At present the article presents the workers as universally opposed to union leadership, which is obviously completely absurd for such a large group. It also contains fairly biased language like "the mainstream unions that were more willing to compromise with the government than enact the will of the base" and "underscoring a disconnect in organizations that claimed to reflect working class interests".