Talk:March in March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

Hi guys, I support what the DLC is doing but I don't think "March in March" is notable enough for it's own article. I suggest it be redirected to Digital Liberty Coalition and the details included there. It is highly likely someone will nominate this article for deletion otherwise. -- Chuq (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. This page just happens to share the same name of a march named "March in March" that is planned in over 28 locations around Australia on the 15th, 16th and 17th of March, 2014. It was mentioned in The Age in an article by Jenna Price titled "March in March grows from genuine grassroots". Since it is an upcoming march/protest, I see that it should say. Thank you. --Cssondss (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, it is mentioned in an opinion piece in a newspaper but otherwise is not mentioned in secondary sources. It also contains much content which is entirely irrelevant to the march. I actually politically agree with most of it, but the Wikipedian side of me sees the obvious issues and wonders whether it should not be removed. Orderinchaos 13:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the article as best I can. The organisation's own claims, the anti-government POV has been removed (the general philosophy of Wikipedia is "let the facts tell their own story"), and irrelevant information about the politics of the day, most of which is original research especially given no marches have yet taken place so we only have the thought leaders' own word for what they will be marching about, has been removed. The result is a short but informative article. I'll leave it to others as to whether it meets the notability guideline for Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 13:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were not many secondary sources before the event, but they are beginning to happen now. This movement has certainly outgrown the DLC. Notability is building. Djapa Owen (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this article fails WP:EVENT. More people went to watch the football that weekend than to the rally. There seems to be little news coverage of the event - it certainly was not front page news. There seems to be no lasting effects or coverage either. --Surturz (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, of course that would be the case. The Murdoch rags in Australia don't want to cover anything that goes against their 'guvunmahnt'... The reality is though that over 100,000 people turned up to the various rally's across the country with between 30,000 - 50,000 in Melbourne (the former is cited by Fairfax Media [1] latter of which was cited by Ten Eyewitness News Melbourne [2]). That's significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.147.60.253 (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP. This was the biggest protest event since the big Gulf War protests and I really do not care if the Murdoch press tried to pretend it did not happen. I am pretty sure Murdoch does not own Wikipedia, although I am sure he would like to. Channel 10, ABC and Fairfax covered the event as shown in the various references here and in the article. Why pretend otherwise? Djapa Owen (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can claim that this was the "biggest protest event since the big Gulf War protests". Canberra Times puts the ACT attendance at "hundreds"[1]. For comparison, the attendance at the ANZAC day Dawn service last year was over 30,000 at the National War Memorial in Canberra.[2] --Surturz (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the ANZAC march is a protest? The AFL grand final is bigger still, and then they are the boxing day sales.... Djapa Owen (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Walk for reconciliation had over 200,000 participants but doesn't get its own article. MiM only had 12,000 attend in Sydney. --Surturz (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reconciliation Australia does. I think this argument is quite lame. The event was huge, the movement against the old political system is significant, and it looks like it is going to continue. I would suggest we should have another look at it in a couple of years and see if it is significant on hindsight. Djapa Owen (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The event was not "huge". That's my point. The Gulf war protests you compare it to were over five times bigger: 150,000 in Melbourne, 200,000 in Sydney, and 600,000 nationwide. The population of Australia has increased 15% since those protests, too.[3][4]--Surturz (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed... even the anti shark culling protest in Perth attracted five times as many attendees as the local MiM franchise. This strikes me as something of deep meaning to attendees but very little to anyone else. As Djapa says, history will tell whether it was actually a significant movement or not. Orderinchaos 20:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on March in March. 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: 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) 21:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on March in March. 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: 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) 13:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_in_March&oldid=1203233078"