Talk:May 68

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422060607/http://membres.lycos.fr/mai68/degaulle/degaulle30mai1968.htm to http://membres.lycos.fr/mai68/degaulle/degaulle30mai1968.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Slogan of "Mai 68" translated
Sous les pavés, la plage!

-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)

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. BD2412 T 20:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

May 1968 events in France → ? – I don't know why the title uses the vaguely noncommittal events when the lead sentence tells us that the article is about a specific period of civil unrest. Civil unrest encompasses such things as "demonstrations, major general strikes, and occupations of universities and factories". As a more descriptive title, I would suggest, though other suggestions are also welcome. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. No such user (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC) —Relisted.  P. I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  put'r there 16:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * After some discussion, I think a revert to May 1968 in France would give the best balance of concision, naturalness, and descriptiveness. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Relist note: Members of bannered WikiProjects (see top of this page) have been notified of this request.  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 16:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Note also that this civil unrest lasted for much of June as well as May. PC78 (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggest May–June 1968 civil unrest in France? PC78 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, to answer the first question, the name of the events in French are "Les événements de mai-juin 1968" (lit. May-June 1968 events). Tbsock (Tbhotch away) (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the full name in the lede while the article's title/common name is fr:Mai 68. It is commonly known in sources as just "May 1968" so the title is a matter of what natural disambiguation distinguishes the title from the existing and general month/year "May 1968" article. (not watching, please )  czar  13:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, why not simply May 1968 in France, which was formerly used as a title? It has the advantage of being more concise with no meaningful loss of information. If anything, events in this context reads like a euphemism, as if no one wants to admit what the events actually were (à la Recent Unpleasantness). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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? – Levivich 16:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support May 1968 French civil unrest as a descriptive title that follows WP:NCEVENTS. Danski454 (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support May 1968 French civil unrest as above comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * According to Michel Foucault: A Research Companion, (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)
 * Comment The English version of the the French language title (ie "May 68") would be by far and away the most authoritative - there are literally thousands of books, journal articles and chapters which contain simply "May 68" in the title. Barring that though, I would support to revert to May 1968 in France.  However, if there is no consensus for that, completely opposed to the replacement of the word events - as per  it is a direct (and appropriate) reference to French language discussion about May 1968.  An NGRAM search shows far more usage for May 68 by itself (add 1968, rather than 68, and you can really see the difference).  A jstor search turns up 84 articles with May 68 alone in the title; just 2 when events is added; 9 with 1968 (instead of 68) and and 184 with May 1968.--Goldsztajn (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. czar  14:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping  czar  04:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit mystified by the statement a time in a place and not a place in a time – one could make an argument for either, I guess. However, May 1968 in France seems to be the more commonly used phrase. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support May 68 per WP:COMMONNAME       and fr:Mai 68.  – Levivich  07:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Several of those sources (NY Times, Reuters, and France 24) actually use May 1968 more when talking about the revolt. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "May 68" are the headlines, which suggests that's the most recognizable. (It's also shorter, which I'd argue makes it more natural.) – Levivich 00:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. – Levivich  01:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that seems like just too many assumptions. WP:COMMONNAME says we generally pick the name "most commonly used" by RSes, not just the names used in headlines. News outlets in general use lots of journalistic shorthand. (I assume no one is proposing we rename 1999 Seattle WTO protests as '99 Seattle WTO protests, for instance.) A better resource would be academic journals and monographs. On Google Scholar, "France 'May 1968 returns almost four times as many results as "France 'May 68. The YYYY date format is also consistent with related articles in Category:1968 protests, Category:1968 riots, Category:20th-century revolutions, etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Another one (Soins Gérontologie) is in French, whereas we generally pick the most common name used by English sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support May 68 per .--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Support May 68 – The ngram data is very clear and conclusive. See ngram here. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously a generic construction such as May 68 is going to return more results than a more focused one such as May 1968 in France. We don't know how many of those are about this topic, as opposed to, say, dates of published papers, other generic date entries, or accidental couplings such as "...for April and May. 68 tons of these...", etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure if someone types in "May 68", they are very very likely looking for this particular subject and no other. I see no other more common name. There is also |May_1968_events_in_France a strong argument for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this topic.--- Coffee  and crumbs  13:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's possible, but I don't see what it has to do with the Ngram data. Whether the topic is primary is only one consideration. For the general reader, I think naturalness and recognizability are more important. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems good enough for the titles of several books about the subject: https://www.google.com/search?q=intitle:%22may+68%22&tbm=bks&num=100. I think that shows that "May 68" meets naturalness and recognizability. I am not see as many book titles with "May 1968": https://www.google.com/search?q=intitle:%22may+1968%22&tbm=bks&num=100. I am only offering alternative theories why I think May 68 is the better title. Your counter arguments are valid. I am not refuting them. I am only saying that from a holistic view of sources and arguments offered, I am personally convinced that "May 68" ticks the most boxes at WP:CRITERIA. --- Coffee  and crumbs  12:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

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".

I am also concerned about the use of highly biased primary sources like the Situationist International. Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)