Talk:Underground media in German-occupied France

Keliher English archive

I stumbled upon a truly amazing resource. It's a 24-page folio entitled "Resistance in France" and printed in England by Keliher, Hudson & Kearns, Carlton Gardens, London, probably in 1944, for La Sociétié des Editions de la France Libre. It consists of English translations of French Resistance clandestine newspapers presented in a facsimile format, including Libération, Le Franc Tireur, Résistance, Le Populaire, La Voix du Nord, L'Humanité, Front National, Forces Unies de la Jeunesse, Les Informations Sociales, MOF (Mouvement Ouvrier Français), Combat, Défense de la France, and Les Lettres Françaises. According to the preface, it was printed "to give British readers an idea of the thoughts and aspirations of Frenchmen in Occupied France." I look forward to using this resource both to expand this article as well as to enhance verifiability by using it liberally as a resource. It may also serve well as a resource for other French Resistance-related articles in general. Mathglot (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

References

wow Elinruby (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Question

Re '...press hidden in the cellar of the Sorbonne, to which Hélène Viannay held the key as a volunteer fire fighter, with the following sentence from Blaise Pascal: "I only believe stories whose ..." How is it "with" exactly? Were these words on the key, the press, the wall? We're they said when she was given the key? Elinruby (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Title

The head-article for this page is currently Underground media in German-occupied Europe and it would seem sensible for the articles to share the same format of title - together with Dutch underground press. I think the latter is undesirable as a format because it opens up the subject to unrelated post-war publications as in Polish underground press - here, presumably mostly connected to 1968. I also think there are reasons for avoiding the term "press" - not least because it would exclude similar forms of publication such as Le Silence de la mer (a novel) which fit reasonably within its scope. The "German-occupied France" part could raise the objection that publications were issued in Vichy territory, but it does seem that Underground media in German-occupied France would seem a reasonable title? —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverted undiscussed move. I did frequency checks before creating the article, and the original title was the favorite in English reliable sources, hence the title. Consistency or parallel structure to the titles of other articles is not a policy-based reason to rename this article, if it goes against WP:COMMONNAME. You can follow WP:RM#CM if you wish to propose a controversial move. Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I've started a WP:RM as you suggest but I do not find your approach constructive. WP:RMUM is clear that I was perfectly entitled to move the page and that "[i]f you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move." Four months seems a pretty long time, and I think it's pretty clear from the lack of any interest in my talk page suggestion or the later move that it was not "controversial". As for consistency with other titles, please note that this is one of the five guiding rules in WP:CRITERIA. Hope this helps. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Since you mentioned it, RMUM is clear that you were not entitled to move it, so I don't know what page you are looking at. As for being in place for a long time, how about, ever since the article was created—is that a long enough time for you? Your argument seems to be saying: it's okay to change a long-term stable article title without discussion, but not to change it back? Hm-kay.... Mathglot (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If you think I was not entitled to move the page, you have clearly not read WP:RMUM properly: Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply: No article exists at the new target title; There has been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.". The last criteria is naturally a little subjective but I note that I did attempt to start a discussions several days before moving the page and got zero interest of any kind so I was was bold and, again, no-one bothered to voice any concerns for several months before you belatedly declared that you thought it "controversial". I really do not want to get into an unproductive argument but, reading between the lines of your comment above, I think the real issue here is a sense of WP:OWNERSHIP which may explain your reaction. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You wrote,

The last criteria is naturally a little subjective...

Ya think? You thought it unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree? Srsly?

And then you started:

...a discussions several days before moving the page and got zero interest of any kind...

Had I seen it, I would have responded. I don't know where you published a link to the discussion, I certainly didn't see it. As creator of and heavy contributor to the article, maybe a notification on my Talk page would have been logical? Or a ping? I notice you didn't bother to notify a single WikiProject about it in the six weeks after you posted your notice. Seems like you skipped several steps here. Or did you maybe want to fly under the radar, and just sneak it through, you know, kinda keeping MUM? Please re-read Wikipedia:Consensus. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and I missed that lack of good faith comment above regarding OWNership, so let me be perfectly clear: I'm completely happy with the name, "Underground media in German-occupied France", and have no objection to it whatever, if that's what WP:COMMONNAME shows, or any other relevant Article title or other policy indicates. Currently, it appears to me that the evidence is against it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, I do have *one* objection to "Underground media in German-occupied France": namely, that title would exclude all the clandestine press that were not in the Occupied zone. The following were located in the unoccupied Zone libre: Le Franc-Tireur, Le Patriote du Sud-Ouest, Libération-sud, Témoignage chrétien and no doubt others. Excluding them from the article just because they were not in the Occupied zone seems arbitrary. The current title supports clandestine press of the Resistance, regardless which side of the demarcation line they were on. Mathglot (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry that you think that you should have received a personal notification but I am really not sure why you think a talk page discussion on the page concerned is insufficient. If you cannot see it, the comment in question is mine of 17 November 2020 above. If you are not aware of it, you can add the page to your Help:Watchlist although it should already be there as the article creator. It would have given you separate notifications of my attempt to open a discussion and the move itself. As for the WP:COMMONNAME argument, I would draw your attention to WP:PRECISION too because the issue is not simply usage in reliable sources but also that titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article. This is the issue here. The point about German-occupied France is a reasonable one. I would certainly not object to Underground media in Vichy and German-occupied France? —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Clandestine press of the French Resistance → Underground media in German-occupied France – I originally changed the title of this article on 21 November 2020 after receiving no response to a message I left on the talk page a few days earlier. Nonetheless, Mathglot had now decided that this was a "controversial move" and, contrary to WP:RMUM, has moved it back without discussion. Seems rather a waste of time, but hey...

WP:CRITERIA sets out five criteria for naming a page. These include Precision, Conciseness and Consistency as well as Recognizability. The rationale for the move is obvious. The article's natural content is not limited to the "press" (eg newspapers) when the French resistance also produced a range of notable fictional publications (Le Silence de la mer being a particularly important one), posters, even radio broadcasts. It is for this reason that the head article is currently entitled Underground media in German-occupied Europe. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Support per nom. (t · c) buidhe 10:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Opposed – the first thing ever printed on a press was a Bible, not a newspaper. "Underground press" is anything printed in an underground manner, pamphlets, flyers, screeds, samizdat copies of Gulag Archipelago (1900 pages and three volumes), and yes, newspapers too. Ngrams is silent on the matter; google books is mostly silent as well, giving 2 results in books for the current title, and none for the proposed one, so that's not much of a data point. If you're going to drag in other articles that aren't this one that don't apply into the discussion, then try some other quoted searches in other countries, like "clandestine press in Russia" (a few results in books) vs. "underground media in Russia" (none), and so on. RMUM (which doesn't support your original move) is maybe a guideline supplement, or a how-to, but WP:AT is policy, and it says: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title." That's what applies in this case, and an undiscussed move does not supersede that. The original title was long-term stable since creation, and the evidence doesn't support a change, as far as I can tell; so per policy, it should not change. Mathglot (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"[O]ther articles that aren't this one that don't apply into the discussion"? I note the irony that you actually added Le Silence de la Mer (a picture no less!) to the article long before I raised it here... —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No irony; it fully belongs here; thanks for reminding me. The first result for the quoted search above mentions it, and was a lucky find; I've added it to the article marking "Edition de Minuit's" (Fr: "Midnight Publishing") emergence as a clandestine press (even its name makes its clandestine status clear), before it morphed into a commercial publisher post-war. Mathglot (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support it's clearer, more natural, more recognizable, and neither is a very concise title (and both are perfectly precise). Good enough for me. Red Slash 17:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Convenience link: prior discussion of this move is just above in section #Title. Mathglot (talk)

There, I've noted one objection based on arbitrary exclusion of presses not based in the Occupied zone. Mathglot (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.