Talk:6 February 1934 crisis

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:

Politics Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. France: Paris Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Paris task force.

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.

No, that is not really true. The reasons for the French defeat of 1940 are many and varied, but the French right did delivered the country to the Germans. More like the German Army did.--A.S. Brown (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks. This is covered in the Manual of Style - I urge you to consult the source and argue your case on the talk page, which is the proper course of action. Individual consensus for individual changes when following guidelines is not required - consensus has already been found on a WP-wide basis. Could you read the MoS, please? And I would appreciate it if you could go back and undo your reverts of my careful work. --Jumbo 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Jumbo on this. Additionally, many English speakers do, in fact, use the format 6 February 1934 (no commas). It's not simply a European format (oddly enough, the birthplace of English, England, is in Europe) as the US military also uses dates in this manner. So, besides being covered in the Manual of Style, there are, in fact, many English speakers who do use this format. --Habap 18:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tazmaniacs. The Manual of Style does not say that articles concerning France (for example) should have dates in the style "6 February". The MOS says that articles concerning the UK, Australia, etc. should have dates in that style; articles concerning US and Canada should have the style "February 6", and "Elsewhere, either format is acceptable." Since either format is acceptable for articles relating to non-English-speaking countries, we should go with the format used by the first significant contribution to the article. --Mathew5000 03:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It gives the examples of the UK, Australia, etc but it clearly means that if there is a clear national usage (and on most of the planet that is what is known as international dating dd/mm/yyyy, not American dating mm/dd/yyyy) that is what should be used. Only where there is not a clear national preference is it then left up to the editor. That is the understanding that has been used here since we first agreed on the rule a long time ago. Super Jumbo is 100% correct. If others had spotted the error of this page having been placed under American dating when France does not use that, they would have moved it. Luckily the error was spotted. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 03:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Logo RN-CRAF 2019.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]