Talk:French Revolution/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

CANDICE IS SEXAYYYY

This may seem insignificant, but perhaps at the top of the page there should be a picture? Wikipedia France's picture is pretty good. It is Louis XVI wearing the citizens cap with the tricolor as the background? Check it out here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9volution_fran%C3%A7aise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs09985 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Neumann

I cut the following as uncited and dubious:

One of the many effects of the French Revolution was the influence that it had on the famous German philosopher, Neumann. One of the effects that it had on him is that it helped him to develop his theory of the dialectic.

I have no idea who this "famous German philosopher Neumann" is supposed to be; the concept of dialectic, of course, goes back to the Greeks, but in its modern sense it is generally traced to Hegel. So either something here needs a great deal of clarification or, as I suspect, this is nonsense. - Jmabel | Talk 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious "further reading"

There was a listing for

• Wakerman, Saul. Montesque and Gregoire: The Seizing of the Tower, Penguin, 2006 ISBN 0-945933-18-8

The ISBN is invalid; "Montesque" is presumably a typo for "Montesquieu"; all online references seem to duplicate the misspelling, which suggests that they are all mirrors of one another. I am taking it upon myself to delete this, and it should not be restored without some evidence that such a book actually exists. - Jmabel | Talk 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

External Link

I would like to add an external link to an Open Univeristy course (http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=1515)made available under Creative Commons licence. Can you let me know if you are happy for me to do this?--Jinky32 12:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Added. Historymike (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Really Hard to Understand

The Top page is very, Very difficult to understand, and needs MAJOR cleanup. Downatball5432 14:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC) This crucial sentence about the causes of the Revolution is badly formed and unclear:

"Historians disagree about the political and socioeconomic nature of the revolution. One interpretation is that the old aristocratic order of the Ancien Régime succumbed to the ambitions of a rising bourgeoisie, influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, and allied with aggrieved peasants and wage-earners in the towns, particularly Paris and Lyon. Another interpretation sees various aristocratic and bourgeois attempts at political and economic reform spinning out of control and coinciding with popular movements of the new wage-earning classes and the provincial peasantry, but see any alliance between classes as contingent and incidental."

It's not clear in the above passage what clauses refer to what, and key terms are needlessly vague. What does it mean to "succumb to the ambitions" of the bourgeoisie? They went along with them, or they were destroyed by them? It's unclear. "...influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment"--grammatically this could refer to either the Ancien Regime, or the bourgeoise. Same thing with "allied"--who was allied with whom in this sentence? "Another interpretation sees"? "Sees" is not the best word choice. "Aristocratic and bourgeois attempts"--are these shared attempts, or opposed ones? "Spinning" and "coinciding" present awkwardly mixed metaphors. Someone really needs to rewite these sentences. ThaddeusFrye 20:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Tried to fix this.Aldrichio 14:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Duration of the Revolution

Currently, this article states that the time period of the revolution was from 1789 to 1815, which would include the eras of the Consulate and First Empire. Most other writings that I have encountered on the subject say that the revolution lasted from 1789 to 1799, ending with the fall of the Directory. Can anyone say anything in support of the view that the Consulate and First Empire were parts of the revolution? If not, then I think the article should be changed.

Totally agree : The First Empire is clearly not a part of the French Revolution ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.140.34.204 (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

The First Empire, according to my History Prof, was considered part of the French Revolution as Napoléon was part of the revolutionary army, as well, although he bacame an emperor, he keeped the revolutionary ideals. That is why in 1814 and again in 1815, there was a period called the restoration, which essentially restored the king to the throne of France. European Rulers of that era considered Napoléon a revolutionary figure and a threat to their royalist, enlightened despotic nations. Therefore the consulate, the directory and the first empire should be kept on the article --Nat.tang 15:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The process of dating the French Revolution is a historiographical argument that, unfortunately, has raged since the nineteenth century, and will likely never be settled. If it is any consolation, both arguments can be considered "correct." I think a compromise would be to include a brief passage about the controversy, and to direct readers via Wiki-links to the Napoleonic pages. Historymike (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)christan is cool

There is a French philosopher that I have just been reading called Alain Badiou who dates the French Revolution 1792-94, i.e. with the establishment of the Convention. His idea is that during this period the Jacobins are defending against the corruption of the ideals of the constitution and as such establihing the "event" of the revolution itself. After it, with the Thermidorian Reaction, you have the rise of the economic profiteers like Boissy d'Anglas. Maybe this break is disputable, but what seems indisputable to me is that somehow the Revolution is still going on with the coup of 18th Brumaire in 1799. What principles are being defended by then? Who is putting their life on the line for a principle, however suicidal it might seem objectively? The country was bankrupt by the time Napoleon staged his coup, so the economic logic of the war had to take precedence over any lingering virtue it may have had. I think 1799 really needs to be the limit of the French Revolution, it makes no sense to continue to refer to it as such. Or if it does, maybe there needs to be a clearer definition of Revolution here to include Badiou's point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution --Rachel0898 (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above point, see Anthropologie du nom (by Badiou's cohort Sylvain Lazarus), pp. 220-224, for a succinct account of the political significance of periodisation in the work of Aulard, Mathiez, Lefebvre and Soboul. As Lazarus' and Badiou's work indicates, the problem of demarcation is an extremely significant one here, and deserves to have at least a short passage devoted to it.Shankspony (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Democracy

The anti-democratic fervor was falling away from the enlightenment by the time that the revolution occurred with the main anti-democracy philosophers were dead (Voltaire and Baron d'Holbach for example). Read the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and it reads as much more a paean to democracy and citizenship (especially citizenship) than to individuality. Jvbishop 16:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

France during the revolution was NOT democratic as not everyone was allowed to vote. There were more authoritarian governments during this era than democratic governments (i.e. the Jacobins (ruled by terror), the Directory (ruled using the army), the Consuls (virtual dictatorship), and my favourite of them all, Napoléon (one of the directors and later Emperor/absolute ruler). Although Napoléon seemed democratic, he was not and only used democracy when it suited him best and disposed of it when it became an obsticle to power. What the enlightenment philosophe, although some of them were dead, favoured the English style of government, Constitutional Monarchy, which was NOT a democratic form of government at this time. If look at the period closely, you'll see that i'm right. --Nat.tang 22:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Universal suffrage was not a part of any early democratic government and the fact that the various forms of government instituted during the revolution failed to achieve the ideals of democracy does not change the fact the they were inspired by enlightenment ideals of democracy, in particular those of Tom Paine and Rousseau. The enlightenment had many different currents of thought flowing thru it. Some were very monarchist (Voltaire, Hobbes) others were semi-democratic, semi-monarchist (Burke) others very much democratic and anti-monarchist. To think that Thomas Paine was for constitutional monarchy is ludicrous, and Paine was definitely an influence and a participant in the early years of the revolution. Jvbishop 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Nat.tang, if you say that France was not a democratic as not everyone was allowed to vote and you believe in the modern universal suffrage, i'm ok with that. But tho, you could add that Athens and the greeks cities were not democratic too, either the roman republic too... Actually, it was democracy at the beginning, as the Enlightments' philosophers imagined it, however it's true to add the revolution felt into a authoritarian cycle just after. Remember too that at the beginning, this revolution didn't want to destitute or kill the king, they just wanted to change about the absolute monarchy. 90.9.154.60 (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of Deaths

Only 18,000 killed in the reign of terror? I think not. By 1794, in Paris alone, the average was closer to 800 a month! By the Festival of the Supreme Being, the number of killings was already in excess of 80,000 in the whole of France.

Refer to the History Channel International, which has recently aired a documentary that includes such comment from many notible professors of French history.

This unsigned comment was left by 69.135.178.138 (talk) and formatted by Jvbishop

William Doyle (Oxford History of the French Revolution, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 258) notes that the official figures for the Terror were about 15,000 victims. He estimated that, in total, 30,000 people may have been executed. Donald Greer (The Incidence of the Terror During the French Revolution 1935) came up with 16,594 by counting all known French archival records. Hugh Gough (The Terror in the French Revolution, New York: St. Matin's Press, 1998, p. 77) concurs with Greer, but argues that 40,000 more people died in prison, or were summarily executed without trial. Then there is the issue of the Revolt in the Vendée, in which hundreds of thousands of civilians died, but which a number of historians hesitate to lump together with the Terror, since state responsibility for the massacres is muddled (did the CPS intend for mass murder, or just pacification?). Historymike (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Women's History is missing

This article is very detailed and precise, but only mentions women's contributions to the Revolution once. More should be added! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.141.3.46 (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

I'll start to work on this. Olympe de Gouge was an important figure who has been omitted from this article, and I have a number of additional reference texts that I'll start perusing. This definitely merits a subsection of its own, plus more attention paid to the contributions of women during other facets of the Revolution. Good suggestion! Historymike (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Initially I expanded the material in this article that covers the The Women's March on Versailles, and I created a separate subsection for this important event.Historymike (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo?

The Roman Catholic Church, the largest landowner in the country, levied a harsh tax on crops known as the dîme which while it annedated the crowns tax increases

Anyone have any idea what this should say?

I suspect it's meant to mean that they always came after - so something like postdate. It looks like it's meant to be an antonym of predate, that unfortunately doesn't seem to exist. I don't want to change it based on a theory without anyone's agreement though. Fysidiko 16:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Execution?

I know that many people were killed during the reign of terror on the slightest suspicion of opposing the Republic. Why then, did so many members of the Bourbon family living in France survive? Wouldn't the republicans have had all of them executed to avoid the risk of a King being restored? Emperor001 14:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

--

I've jsut been doing some revision and I think that the explanation could be that they either fled the country and then returned (Flight of the emigres) or went into hiding in the countryside where radicalism was less prevelant than in Paris (see Thermidorian reaction for counter-revoltionary action) and the major cities where the grip of the Sans-culottes was lessened. There are certainly more explanations for this abnormality but here are a few just to throw into the pot.

--Samnutter3212 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See Also section

The following is listed in the See also section:

A Tale of Two Cities - A novel by Charles Dickens

If that is included, shouldn't other major works set in the French Revolution also be mentioned? For example, The Scarlet Pimpernel series by Baroness Orczy. Otherwise, why is A Tale of Two Cities mentioned as though it's non-fiction?

- Elin

Grammar in the text under the heading: "National Constituent Assembly (1789–1791)"

In the last paragraph of text under the heading: "National Constituent Assembly (1789–1791) ==

Storming of the Bastille", it says ...

"In rural areas, many went beyond this: some burned title-deeds and no small number of châteaux, as part of a general agrarian insurrection known as "la Grande Peur" (the Great Fear)."

Does this mean that not a small number of châteaux were burned, or should the "no" be simply changed into an "a" or just change the whole sentence to:

"In rural areas, many went beyond this: some ransacked the châteaux of the nobles, burned documentation recording feudal obligations, or compelled those nobles they found in residence to renounce their feudal rights, as part of a general agrarian insurrection known as "la Grande Peur" (the Great Fear)."

OneStooge 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Typos

'monarcy' appears a few times.

Bennybutler 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think its fixed now. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Page of the day?

Think this should be nominated for page of the day?--§ Eloc § 02:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection removed

Semi-protection was removed by User:WJBscribe, who has removed semi-protection from all these articles recently. After removing protection from King Arthur, i5 October, this administrator did not check back to see whether a torrent of vandalism had been unleashed by this action. It had been. I shall simply remove French Revolution from my Watchlist. --Wetman (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. If you have a problem with my actions, please direct yourself to my talkpage rather than making such presumptuous comments. For you information, it is a routine matter to lift protection after many months have expired so as to judge whether it remains necessary - you will find that many pages I have unprotected over recent months are experiencing little or no vandalism. I keep a watch on those article - King Arthur is in my view at the borderline of what is tolerable vandalism. As the encyclopedia anyone can edit, I view watchlisting and reverting a far preferable action than semi-protection. If you want another admin to review the protection status of King Arthur, you may request it at WP:RFPP. You post above seems ill-conceived - please think further before making such accusations in future and if you wish to comment about me, I would appreciate you doing so face-to-face. WjBscribe 04:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit behind WjB's decision to remove the semi-protection tag. Not only do I find excessive tagging to be annoying, but in my experience most vandals get bored after a week or so and move on to other pursuits. Besides, reverting to an earlier clean version when vandals attack is not that dificult. Historymike (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What are the legacies of the French Revolution???

They are not here... The one who put the "Historical Analysis" there did not put instead "Legacy" there. The legacy is something that is left by the Revolution. And that Russian Revolution of 1917, as that section indicated is what has been taken from the French Revolution.

NOTE:The information put on the latter part of introduction of the page is not enough to see the other legacies of the Revolution. -Pika ten10 (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect book reference

It's not Robert Sobel, it's Robert Soboul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.106.137 (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So, correct it if you know it's incorrect. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Sobel did indeed pen The French Revolution: A Concise History and Interpretation, which went trhough several editions. Perhaps the user 141.228.106.137 was thinking of Albert Soboul, whose book I added to the bibliographical list. Historymike (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Free encyclopedia, my butt

This is stupid. Why can't I edit any pages? Allexey79 (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is semi-protected, probably because of vandalism. This means that editing is disabled for anonymous users and users with accounts that are less than four days old. It seems that your account was created very recently, so that would account for the fact that you can't edit anything yet. Wait until the four days are up and then you'll be able to edit the article as normal. Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

pictures

Hi my names Tyler im a middle school student and i come here for info in mostly W.studies papers . my teacher wants title page on clip art on our papers. i would really appreciate it if you could have a chapter with pictures for the topics on this site. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.192.215 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What? Whatipedia (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Calonne?

This sentence fragment left me scratching my head:

"Calonne asked this group to approve a new land tax that would, ..."

Who the hell is Calonne? He is never mentioned before this. In fact that whole section is pretty hard to understand. 24.174.30.146 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've wikilinked Calonne. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for this entry. It is interesting, which is a feat for some writers of history.

Please remove vandalism

Under the "Women s March on Versailles" section, there is a line "Along with this crowd is Jackie Mangano who was picked up by Travis Walstrom the Time Traveling Assassin who brought her to the present day. Today they live in wealth from his deeds to society[citation needed]. " Please remove this obvious vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.134.163 (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been removed; thank you for pointing it out. ... discospinster _talk 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

External search on Estates

I searched Wiki for 1st 2nd 3rd Estates and found no correct match. So I went to Google and found this info (link) via French Revolution. Someone in the know, could you set the search to include 1st 2nd 3rd likeas First Second Third. Thanks in advance. Greg0658 (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Standard work

Anyone know what the "standard work" is (if any) on the French Revolution? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Aggrieving vs. Aggrieved

A recent change suggested that the collapse of the aristocrats aggrieved the peasants rather than they succumbed to peasants who were aggrieved. I don't think this is correct, have I made a mistake on the rollback? BananaFiend (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

1789-1799?

Many historians state that the revolution began before 1789, Wright says that it began as aristocratic clash with the monarchy in 1787 and led on to the events of 1789... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.196.213 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Robespeirre

Talk about Robespeirre bringing tranny to France. And unlessing totalitarism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.62.45 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Rights of man

The caption for the picture of the declaration of the rights of man says that it is the declaration of human rights. Clearly the declaration was sexist and was not what we would call true human rights today. 60.242.186.33 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The declaration pictured is not "the declaration of the rights of man". It is the "Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen". See http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homme for the meaning of "Homme".

Breandán Dalton (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Counter-Revolution

It would be nice to have at least a sentence or two about the Counter-Revolution in this article. Kaldari (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Anachronism

I removed the following from the article. Originally, I was only going to move it to the the end of the section, but it needs quality improvements. For one thing, it's generic - like a pamphlet. Secondly, it's a little anachronistic, even in its simplicity. The reasons listed in the article as is are certainly not pro-monarchy, they're better thought out and delivered, and they're more accurate and relevant. If you want to make a case for socialism in France in the late 1700's, that should still go in a special section/subsection devoted to it.

BTW: is there really that much disagreement about the repetition in history of: people living under terrible conditions and an indifferent, inept government leading to violence and revolution; or is that a standard recipe for tensions and instability? Blablablob (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Historians disagree about the political and socioeconomic nature of the Revolution. Traditional Marxist interpretations, such as that presented by Georges Lefebvre, described the revolution as the result of the clash between a feudalistic noble class and the capitalist bourgeois class. Some historians argue that the old aristocratic order of the Ancien Régime succumbed to an alliance of the rising bourgeoisie, aggrieved peasants, and urban wage-earners.

Yet another interpretation asserts that the revolution resulted when various aristocratic and bourgeois reform movements span out of control. According to this model, these movements coincided with popular movements of the new wage-earning classes and the provincial peasantry, but any alliance between classes was contingent and incidental.

There is not a word about socialism here, nor do I see anything remotely pamphlet-like. I'll re-introduce it.--Anonymous44 (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Source and Correction of France's Debt

Since I'm a new member I am not permitted to edit this protected page but I wanted to make a request. I found a creditable source of France's financial circumstances, they actually had 4 billion livres of debt (80 % of GNP), with a budget deficit of 100 million livres. Here is the source, third paragraph: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/63.3/potofsky.html. It should be changed to more accurately depict France's financial situation. I'm pretty sure the link will work, but my college pays for a subcription so I'm not positive.

Thanks,

RoberttheKingmaker (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposing rewrite, improvement drive

Greetings everyone: I propose we begin a rewrite of this article, in order to create a better read. A subject of this magnitude deserves the best, and I'd like to get momentum behind a substantial improvement drive. I am going to begin editing shortly; please feel free to revert any of my edits if you don't agree: we can discuss. Is there anyone else that would like to help? Aux armes, citoyens. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

or aux stylos...whatev...let's get this going. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in. OK, I think first, on reading the article, the first thing that jumps out is the disorderly nature of the chapters. Maybe we could agree here as to the section headers, and where we will link to complete articles (also try and point out if these exist or not). Does that seem like a good place to start to other people? Hrcolyer (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! I agree, the article has a pasted-together feel. We can discuss section/subsections and the weight given to each topic. From what I can tell, there are articles on most big events throughout; their quality is another question. Anyway, great to have you onboard; I agree, organization is a good place to start. I'm going to start working on sourcing, also. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a division by period would help. Starting with pre-1789 (working title, more something like "Situation in France previously" or "Causes") and finishing with Bonaparte. Maybe if we could establish the various events/periods needed..., and also what over sections are needed. I think we also need to discuss the philosophical grounding for it, and it's cultural implication (place in the French psyche, etc...). What else?Hrcolyer (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as taking responsability for some sections, I'd be interested in trying to re-do the "Counter-revolution" section, which I suppose is meant to include the Vendée and Chouannerie sections...Hrcolyer (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Great. Before even reading your entire reply I thought: "I hope he volunteers for the counter-rev section". Agreed re: pre-1789; perhaps some sort of a "background" or brief explanation of the ancien regime, specifically the tail end of the Bourbon dynasty. Perhaps a new "Legacy" section, which would cover the effects of the Revolution, both worldwide and in France (I think this is what you allude to with cultural implication). The top section "Causes" is mostly a list; I'm not generally fond of lists, do you think there is a better way we could present this material? Lazulilasher (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be possible to convey the same information in narrative form. Basically if we quickly present the situation of France in the 1780s, we will have to talk about "growing resentment about...". I think if we also talk about the ideology/philosophical justifications of the revolution, and the politics in its unfolding, the causes will all end up there. Also, the box on the right is a bit of a mess. I notice if you click on the other boxes, there is a new pretty "History of France" box. It seems OK, I suppose we should use this. Maybe at the bottom we should have a specific French Revolution one, with links to periods, events, people, theories, etc... Hrcolyer (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about the box, as well. Not sure if it's a great idea, but I was envisioning an infobox dealing specifically with the French Revolution, and providing easy access to articles on the important topics. We could have a French History drop down box at the bottom. Just an idea.... Lazulilasher (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think we need the two infoboxes. The French history one already exists, so maybe we should keep that, and the one we create can go at the bottom...Hrcolyer (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts on what should go in said infobox?Hrcolyer (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a "Series on the French Revolution" and have links to "People", "Events", etc? Perhap the French History could go at the bottom, and the more pertinent Revolution could go at the top? Lots of work, I know, but this whole project is going to be an endeavour. I'm realising that now as I work on the sourcing/prose. This is in the top 2,500 viewed pages on en-wiki. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There was, at one time, such a series, with all articles linked by a template. It seems to have been disassembled. - Jmabel | Talk 18:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like most of them are still linked by a template, but the template was removed from this article. See for example French Revolution from the summer of 1790 to the establishment of the Legislative Assembly.

Many of these still are not much changed from when I singlehandedly threw together a "solid first draft" over 5 years ago. - Jmabel | Talk 18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

I unprotected this article, as I am attempting to improve it. I found it disingenuous to have the "article needs improvement" tag on w/ semi-protect on as well. I've got the page on my watchlist, and it will be my main editing area for the time being. If vandalism becomes too significant, I will re-protect. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the unprotection didn't work. I reprotected the page: someone had replaced "National Assembly" with "Elvis died in the French Revolution, not on a toilet". This went unnoticed for hours. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I just now cleaned up some major vandalism. Someone may want to see if I caught it all. I think this should be semi-protected again, though I won't do so unilaterally. - Jmabel | Talk 17:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I definitely think keeping the article semi-protected is the best thing to do at this point, namely because of the improvement project that is currently taking place.rs09985 (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Some comments

Hello. I made some minor updates of the page, but here are a few personal additional commments:

• External links. Some look to be not major, or not directly related to the topic: A Tale of Two Cities, Jean Nicolas Pache, Napoleonic code, Rise of nationalism in Europe, Scarlet Pimpernal. Same for the link to Haitian Revolution
  • BTW, "Pimpernel", not "Pimpernal" - Jmabel | Talk 18:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Era. Which period to cover ? OK for 1789/1799, but a few words on some 1788 events (ex : Vizille) would help to understand the origin.
• "Historical Era" section: the First Republic as successor looks strange: the 1st Republic (1792-1804) is part of the Revolution!
• End : explain how Bonaparte came thanks to his military victories

+ one question : you use "British english" (the one I studied) or "American english" (the one I use now) Zetud (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (not native English speaker, please be indulgent)

No worries. Thanks for coming over. Soon, I am going to start editing more intensely. I think the article should be mainly from 1789-99, with a background section briefly overviewing the ancien regim and a slightly more detailed portion explaining the end years of the Bourbon Dynasty. Agreed: more Napoleon is needed: probably more than a "whiff of grapeshot". We have an intense spelling policy, from what I understand this article should be in all British spelling... (international topic, not related to America at all)

Don't be concerned about language; I have no difficulties understanding. I am the same one fr-wiki. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Alright, I've started to rewrite the Estates-General section, add cites, etc...let me know if I screw anything up ;) Lazulilasher (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most of these links shouldn't go at the bottom, however, Tale of Two Cities & Scarlet Pimpernal should go somewhere, possibly in culture section? Anyway, welcome. As for when we should end, although originally I would have said 1804, actually, reading seems to show that the 18th Brumaire coup is taken as an end date, which makes sense. We go back to a strong state (the Consulate), so it is no longer a "Revolution". So I think 1st Republic is in place during the revolution, but outlives it. So 1st Republic is also a successor. The problem arises from the confusion between historical period and forms of French state. The Revolution overlaps several of the latter, and the Republic existed through several (well, two) periods of French History. Or am I alone on this?Hrcolyer (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

But that isn't to say we shouldn't talk about what happens after, just that I don't think that we should count this under "French Revolution", rather as "Successor" or "Consequences" or something...Hrcolyer (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Also: when did the Revolution "officially" start? Was it the Estates-General? Camille Desmoulins calling men to arms? 14 July? Lafayette leading Marie Antoinette onto the balcony? I'm concerned because I wanted to add a "Pre Revolution" section that comprises the growing financial crises on Calonne's responses, and a more detailed explanation of the leadup to the Assembly of Notables. I'm curious what everyone thinks. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Carlyle begins with: "Part 1: The Bastille"; I guess he believes that to be the beginning. But, wasn't the Tennis Court Oath rather revolutionary? Lazulilasher (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say the Etats Généraux (1st May), as they were usually only used to deal with a crisis. I would definitely put it before La Bastille, if not the start, maybe the Tiers Etat and the Clergé walking out of the EG, or the king closing it, or the taking of the title of Assemblée Nationale? If not 1st May, my vote goes for the latter.Hrcolyer (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK to start on 14th July. The États Généraux is a normal process, but the Bastille event is clearly not. Keep in mind the famous question of Louis XVI to the duc de Liancourt on 14th in the evening, and the duc's answer : C'est une révolte ? Non sire, c'est une Révolution (It's a revolt ? No Sire, it's a revolution). Zetud (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The article on Liancourt points out that this quote was from the 12th. Although if I'm alone on this, it doesn't really matter, but I do feel the Revolution started before the storming of the Bastille. The Estates-General, after all, are not a normal process, but a way of responding to a crisis...Hrcolyer (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And not that this is an argument per se, but looking at the other foreign language wikis I can understand, they all tend to either start at convocation des etats generaux or when the tiers etat declared itself assemblée constituante...Hrcolyer (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The Etats-generaux should be included. According to Doyle, this represented the end of absolute monarchy. And, we cannot include the Etats without a brief discussion of the sorrounding history: Assembly of Notables, financial crisis, monarchy could not intervene in Dutch R. I rewrote those two sections (Notables/Etats) and assiduously sourced them. Let me know what you think :) Cdt, Lazulilasher (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree; the Revolution proper began on 14 July. I'm going to get a C'est une revolte tatoo, I think. Anyway, pursuant to that, I am going to reorder the sections a bit to make it easier for us to focus (i.e. "Pre Revolution") Lazulilasher (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The list: anyone want to start working on changing that long list in the "causes" section to prose? If we could get some citations on it too, that would be awesome :) Lazulilasher (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Done that. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 20:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Navigation Box

new template project at User:Hrcolyer/Wikiproject_France/French_Revolution/Template:French_Revolution. Please comment,etc... Also there is a new History of France box Template:History_of_France, but as it doesn't expand by section, I suggest we only change it once the new box is ready. Hrcolyer (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have finished a first draft, available at User:Hrcolyer/Wikiproject France/French Revolution/Template:French Revolution/Infobox. If nobody comments, I will add it to the bottom of the article and insert the new History of France template.Hrcolyer (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Good thing I came to this talk page. I was thinking of creating the same thing. The current draft looks good to me. I would add it and see how people respond. Remember (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added it myself since there had been no further discussion. Hope people like the footer. Remember (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Consequences/Influences

Shouldnt there be a column about the consequences of the French Revolution? It was a major event not only in France but also in Europe, and its consequences stretched much further then just the napoleonic wars. 77.250.25.165 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Influences; who said history doesn't repeat itself rather it rhymes. Under Financial Crisis it would be useful to link in the disastrous influences of the British economist John Law in France [1]and then look at why Dominique de Villepin on 19 April 2009 says there is a current risk of revolution in France http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_MDZmMEpgY. Perhaps if Britain rather than France had memories of John Law then Britian would not currently be engaged in Quantitative Easing (printing money)[2].It would be an excellent addition, especially in today's world, to expand a little more on the Financial History behind the French Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.30.165 (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

epic march? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.44.144 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Error

In the "National Constituent Assembly (1789–1791)" section, under "Storming of the Bastille," paragraph four, it should read: "cries of Vive le Roi were changed to Vive la Nation." It says the opposite right now and is confusing. Simple mistake! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.107.100 (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Another error can be observed under the heading "National Assembly", where on the final line "Assembly-line" can be read, rather than "Assembly". Please change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.134.109 (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In the opening section, immediately under the "French Revolution" banner, third paragraph, there is mention of the French Revolution being the cause for the invention of "Total War". If you follow the link from "Total War", the article begins by discussing the use of the concept long before the French Revolution, and then states that the French Revolution "...reintroduced some of the concepts...", rather then invented "Total War". These two articles are contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlideStrife (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Total war article is completely unreferenced until the WWII period, so I would take the historical section of that article with a large grain of salt. That being said, as the claim in this article is unreferenced as well, I don't know whether this claim is true either. I have placed a "Citation needed" tag on it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammar error

Could someone write something about Brett Favre in this article or maybe Blazing Saddles? "Warfare involving every other major European powers" should read "warfare involving every other major European power." Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eme2512 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The last line in the second paragraph states: "The next few years were dominated by tensions between various liberal assemblies and a right-wing monarchy intent on thwarting major reforms"

This is not neutral language. It is innapropriate to use "liberal" instead of Leftist and then follow with "right-wing" instead of conservative. It should be either "liberal assemblies and a a conservative..." "or left-wing and a right-wing". Even more egregious is the use of "intent on thwarting reforms". This is very obviously not neutral language. This is a politcal accusation. It should read something like: "The next few years were dominated by tensions between various left-wing assemblies and a right-wing monarchy determined to preserve the current system" or something like that.

Again, the language used here is clearly not neutral and needs to be changed. Ibn Aflatun (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

the terms "liberal" "Left" and "right" were in use in the 1790s; liberal and Left meant somewhat different positions, so we can keep that language. "intent on thwarting reforms" seems ok to me. Wikipedia should NOT assume that "reform" is a good thing, as apparently Ibn Aflatun assumes. "reform" is a neutral term, and it's fair to say people who opposed reform were "intent on thwarting reforms". Rjensen (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Counter-Revolution rewrite

Hi all, I will be working on this section, please come and join me at User:Hrcolyer/Wikiproject_France/French_Revolution/Counter-Revolution, so as not to clog up this page with notes. From the work there I will be working on the section and possibly separate articles as well. Do help, comment as you can/want. Hrcolyer (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

References in general

Hopefully I can help out with this article, because I think it seems the general consensus is that it needs a little 'cleaning up.' If anyone has any suggestions as to what parts could use a clean-up, let me know and I'll try to improve upon it. rs09985 (talk) 2:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Rs09985 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm great to see you here! I tried to get momentum around this a few months back; but, wasn't able. Great, generally, IMO the entire article needs to be rewritten; much is from the 1911 Brittanica. I rewrote the Financial Crisis & Estates General sections; but was unable to continue further. I'd like to start working back into it, if we can get a collaboration going. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Start Date

For the actual revolution the start date has always been 1789, not really circa. There isn't much debate when it physically started. The mindset of the people of France, and the nature of the 'true' beginning of the revolution...well I won't even get into that. But, would it be better if we dated it as most historians do, which would be (1789-99)rs09985 (talk)

In total agreement with you: French Revolution 1789-1799. The actual date is the day of the Storming of the Bastille: 14 July 1789. What happened before belongs to *causes and events* leading to Revolution.

This being written between bûche de Noël & champagne, Joyeux Noël to you Frania W. (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree. My proposal: treat this article as a survey of the French Revolution; from a broad perspective. This would include mentioning the causes, etc; but, I agree we should being, in earnest, with "C'est une révolte? Non sire, c'est une Révolution" Lazulilasher (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a great quote. In his journal for July 14th, he wrote nothing for the day. I bet his face was red when the guard informed him of that little mishap at the Bastille.Rs09985 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

pop my two cents in here. revisionist historians, such as Francois furet and william doyle, have dated the french revolution as beginning with the council of notables in 1787. as this was the first break with the absolutist principle of all sovereignty being vested in the king. french revolution has a convoluted historiography and a circa date might actually be more accurate in terms of the long standing debate on its origins. again, my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.232.166 (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Colonizing

Anyone know how we gather-up and improve articles around colonizing? like Castorland_Company (during or just after the French Revolution). -- Mjquin_id (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

it ended in 1815 as did the napoleonic era —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.60.113 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, almost all historians agree that the revolution ended in 1799, when Napoleon seized power from the Directory. The French First Empire ended in 1815. Rs09985 (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with Rs09985. Napoleon did not crown himself Emporor before 1804, but he was a Monarch in all but name.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

In the second paragraph of the "Causes" section it says "2 billion livres" when it should read "two billion livres." Why is this page protected???

This page is protected because of constant vandalism, like all articles pertaining to the History of France. It's as simple as that! Some articles that are not protected and should, get vandalised up to 20 times a day. Look at the history of Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette, for instance. Frania W. (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this page (French Revolution) protected?? Looking over the history, over the past year there has only been 2/3 instances of vandalism! 188.222.9.16 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

How interesting! Since this page is protected, "there has only been 2/3 instances of vandalism"! Hmm! Could these few instances of vandalism be due to the fact that this page is protected? This would prove that protection works. Bravo!

Frania W. (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Frania - don't be such a clever clogs. My statement was more of a question as someone new to wikipedia. I thought protection was only for articles which were frequently vandalised? Looking at the history, before the protection was applied in August 2009, the last case of vandalism was 9 months prior in November 2008, yet you stated that it was vandalised up to 20 times per day?! Am I missing something? Ah, perhaps the history hasn't been commented in every instance of vandalism? 188.222.9.16 (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP188.222.9.16: what is so clevercloggish about my answer? In November 2008, the article was vandalised 110 times, 35 of which in a single day: 12 November. Semi-protection was applied on 20 November 2008 and, from what I understand, reconfirmed on 25 August 2009. Since the article has been put under semi-protection in November 2008, it has suffered only five cases of vandalism. So, at the risk of being labeled "a clever clogs", I shall reiterate my "Could these few instances of vandalism be due to the fact that this page is protected?" Regards, Frania W. (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical analysis

The last paragraph of this section now reads:

Scholars have asked whether certain Rousseauian and Jacobin concepts carried with them the seeds of twentieth century totalitarianism. Historian François Furet in his work, Le Passé d'une illusion (1995) (The Passing of An Illusion (1999) in English translation) explores in detail the similarities between the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution of 1917 more than a century later, arguing that the former was taken as a model by Russian revolutionaries. Likewise, the Italian historian Renzo De Felice tied the the French Revolution to fascism, "albeit spuriosly", when he wrote that that fascism "contains both a well-defined theory of human progress and a conception of the popular will that ties it to the extremist Rousseauian themes of the Terror and the ‘totalitiarian democracy’ that it spawned."

This paragraph does not explain the overall level of acceptance of these ideas and does not present alternative views. Fascism and related ideologies are normally seen as a reaction to the liberal ideals of the revolution. Consensus historians in France see Vichy France as incorporating ultra-right ideology (legitimism) rather than Jacobinism. I understand that there may be similarities between the French and Russian (and American and English for that matter) revolutions but how does that relate to "Rousseauian and Jacobin concepts" being the "seeds...of totalitarianism"?

The paragraph should be re-written for clarity and neutrality.

The Four Deuces (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not even really a paragraph. The sentence comparing the French and Russian revolutions has been in the article for months, whereas the claims inserted by Mamalujo were simply tacked onto the beginning and end of the sentence, implying an (apparently) false connection between those disparate analyses of different events by different authors, and giving the appearance of having created a "cohesive" paragraph where none existed before. This constitutes an additional, subtle form of SYN, in addition to the problems with the new assertions themselves, which impart undue weight to the views of one or two specific scholars by failing to reflect and attribute the views properly, giving the appearance that they are claims of academic consensus.

When going out on a limb with complex and far-reaching analyses of disparate subject matter – perhaps even going so far as presenting revisionist history, as Deuces has suggested, I insist that it's critical to discuss and build consensus for the suggested changes rather than simply inserting them in the article without comment. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The article being on the history of French Revolution of 1789, i.e. causes leading to it & description of events of the Revolution itself, it seems to me that the section Historical analysis is out of place in this article. The article Historiography of the French Revolution with its section The Marxist, or Classic, interpretation is where such analysis & discussion belong. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article isn't "History of the French Revolution" it is just "French Revolution". The article is flawed without it. The matter really doesn't belong in a historiography article. Encyclopedias commonly have sections of the article which talk about the effects or legacy of the revolution. For example the Columbia Encyclopedia article on the French Revolution has a section on the revolution's effects: "Although some historians view the Reign of Terror as an ominous precursor of modern totalitarianism, others argue that this ignores the vital role the Revolution played in establishing the precedents of such democratic institutions as elections, representative government, and constitutions." Encarta's article has a section on its "ambiguous legacy": "Some historians have suggested that what the revolutionaries’ liberty meant in practice was violence and a loss of personal security that pointed to the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. This negative view had its roots in the ideas of many counter-revolutionaries, who criticized the Revolution from its beginning. These ideas gained new popularity during the period of reaction that set in after Napoleon’s final defeat in 1815, when the monarchy and its counter-revolutionary allies were restored to power. However, the majority of Europeans and non-Europeans came to see the Revolution as much more than a bloody tragedy. … One of the most important contributions of the French Revolution was to make revolution part of the world’s political tradition. The French Revolution continued to provide instruction for revolutionaries in the 19th and 20th centuries, as peoples in Europe and around the world sought to realize their different versions of freedom. Karl Marx would, at least at the outset, pattern his notion of a proletarian revolution on the French Revolution of 1789." Of course, I think the article ought to have the counter-point - that the effects or legacy of the revolution were the spawning of constitutionalism, liberty and the rights of man. Mamalujo (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that the title of the article is the History of the French Revolution, but that the article is *on* the history of the French Revolution. As an article on a person is a biography, the article follows the course of the life of the French Revolution, beginning with its causes & ending with its effects. However, going in a long dissertation on Marxism & all the excesses of totalitarian regimes of the 20th century (to which would be added those coming in the 21st) does not belong in the article. The Columbia Encyclopedia article does not blabla to great length into the effects of the French Revolution (below), while something more developed can be obtained here as Wikipedia gives the possibility of attaching sub-articles, as mentioned before. This would have the advantage of allowing a full exposé of the various effects of the French Revolution world-wide. If some entries are put in, the tone of the (end of) article will be changed, giving it a strong non-neutral POV. (At least, that's the way I see it while the back & forth discussion is going on & the tone is mounting.) Frania W. (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Columbia Encyclopedia last two paragraphs:

Effects of the Revolution

The French Revolution, though it seemed a failure in 1799 and appeared nullified by 1815, had far-reaching results. In France the bourgeois and landowning classes emerged as the dominant power. Feudalism was dead; social order and contractual relations were consolidated by the Code Napoléon. The Revolution unified France and enhanced the power of the national state. The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars tore down the ancient structure of Europe, hastened the advent of nationalism, and inaugurated the era of modern, total warfare.

Although some historians view the Reign of Terror as an ominous precursor of modern totalitarianism, others argue that this ignores the vital role the Revolution played in establishing the precedents of such democratic institutions as elections, representative government, and constitutions. The failed attempts of the urban lower middle classes to secure economic and political gains foreshadowed the class conflicts of the 19th cent. While major historical interpretations of the French Revolution differ greatly, nearly all agree that it had an extraordinary influence on the making of the modern world.

C'est tout.

Frania W. (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The term precursor implies no causal connection. But Mamalujo's edit implied that the values of the French Revolution: democracy, equality under the law, freedom and capitalism, which were the same values as the English and American Revolutions were inherently wrong and he provided no alternative view. Mamalujo's opinion, which he failed to source, is ultra-reactionary and similar to the world-view in the Protocols of Zion. If these views are to be presented, they should be tempered by more mainstream views. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you babbling about? It is not my opinion but well sourced material. Many scholars see the French and American revolutions as being easily distinguishable. The American Revolution had no Reign of Terror. It did not slaughter 40,000 innocents in six months. It did not seek to dechristianize the nation. It did not desecrate churches and turn them into temples to the Goddess of Reason. Protocols of the Elders of Zion???!!! What have you been smoking? Statements along the lines of the edits I have made are found in encyclopedias and in history and political science text books. Please stop the wing-nut ad hominem attacks - it goes far beyond failing to assume good faith. How dare you call my opinion ultra-reactionary or compare it to that filthy anti-semitic work. My political opinions, which are actually irrelevant to this discussion, are quite mainstream and moderately conservative.

I did not say that the values of democracy were inherently wrong. What some scholars are saying is something to the effect that the values of radicalism, mob rule and totalitarian revolution, i.e. remaking not just government but society and man (something the American revolution did not seek to do), were precursors to 20th century totalitarianism. And if you will read my last post you can see that I proposed that BOTH sides of the "ambiguous legacy" of the revolution be included in the article. Mamalujo (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Which "historians view the Reign of Terror as an ominous precursor of modern totalitarianism"? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Its obviously a widely held view, otherwise it wouldn't be found in general encyclopedia articles on the French Revolution. It may have been novel a half century ago but is not today. Jacob Talmon and François Furet (whose work in particular was very influential) were a couple of the earlier proponents. Mamalujo (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It would have been helpful had the encyclopedias given information about their sources. I cannot find anything in the writings of Talmon and Furet that specifically corroborates the statement about the Terror and totalitarianism. Do you know where they discussed this? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a book review of Furet's The Passing of an Illusion which summarizes his major themes including "Furet's book begins with a study of the roots of communism in the French Revolution of 1789", "According to Furet, communism's evil twin, fascism, picked up on the revolutionary potential of nationalism, unleashed by the events of 1789", and "Revolution of 1789 bequeathed, not only liberal democracy to the modern world, but revolutionary totalitarianism as well". Mamalujo (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(out)The connection between 1789 and fascism is described in the review:

According to Furet, communism's evil twin, fascism, picked up on the revolutionary potential of nationalism, unleashed by the events of 1789. While communism sought, at least in theory, to spread the concept of The Rights of Man to the working classes and the dispossessed, fascism's radical nationalism sought to emancipate nations. Hitler and Mussolini's call to national pride and self-assertion struck a cord with many people, humiliated by national collapse after the Great War.

So the Revolution of 1789 bequeathed, not only liberal democracy to the modern world, but revolutionary totalitarianism as well.

So the connection between the French Revolution and fascism is nationalism. It does not mention Rousseau or the Terror.

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The references to Rousseau are cited in the sourced material which you and your comrade kept deleting (apparently without reading the text or the sources). In the Passing of an Illusion Furet does refer obliquely to Rousseau's influence at p 16 and to the Terror at 71-72. Some of his followers have been more explicit. In the deleted material Cohen and Paul are quite explicit. Mamalujo (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Furet, at p. 16, is in the process of speaking of "antibourgois passion" when he refers to Rousseau. Without reading a lot more, I'm not sure where you are seeing anything about a link between Rousseau and Fascism. Please explain? Also, pages 71-72 don't seem to be accessible to me; could you quote some source text and explain how it substantiates that Furet asserted a link between the French Revolution and Fascism? And while we're on the subject, please understand that it's up to you to demonstrate that the material you want to add is relevant, well-sourced, etc.. a big part of that is discussing actual source text on the Talk page. I know that it can seem insulting when people question or challenge you, especially if it's something that's obvious to you or something which you know from your own studies; just remember that WP tends to require everything to be laid out in a somewhat pedantic, extensively footnoted way. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Try this link.[3] Pages 71-72 also do not mention totalitarianism or fascism.

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The pages are still unavailable to me, unfortunately. I think google books may have a tricky way of remembering which pages it blocked for a specific user, in order to prevent someone single person from previewing the same book over and over until they get all the pages, and thereby steal the book. I'll take your word for it though. Mamalujo, if you disagree, could you provide us with some source text that substantiates your claim? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW The full name of the book is The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Furet refers to Rousseau or the Terror in that regard is beside the point. His work was not cited as authority for those propositions. Mamalujo (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, gee; I'm glad I wasted my time chasing down that reference, then. Perhaps next time you could avoid suggesting a work supports your claim when it doesn't. And, of course, avoid inserting article text which is not substantiated by the source you provide. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If you would read my comments (not to mention the text which you deleted) you would see that Paul and Cohen are cited for those propositions. Mamalujo (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I read your comments and the text I deleted. I was able to see that Cohen's work, for example, did not quite substantiate the claim you attributed to it. That was a primary reason why I deleted it, although there were others. Meanwhile, the referenced pages from Paul's work are unavailable in the Google Books preview that's linked. As I said, if you wish to add material on this subject, bring your proposed material to the talk page, along with text from the source which you say substantiates it, and let it be subjected to a little peer review before simply inserting it into the article sans commentaire and then reverting anyone who removes it. And, I wonder if you have given any further consideration to Frania W.'s comment that this whole discussion is suited to the article Historiography of the French Revolution, and not this one? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) I took the following out: Historian François Furet in his work, Le Passé d'une illusion (1995) (The Passing of An Illusion (1999) in English translation) explores in detail the similarities between the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution of 1917 more than a century later, arguing that the former was taken as a model by Russian revolutionaries. While it is no doubt true, it violates WP:Weight that the only consequence of the Revolution mentioned is the Russian Revolution. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It would appear by itself to give undue weight, which is why I think we should have a section on the legacy of the French Revolution which includes the legacy of both sets of principles of the revolution, what one author referred to as "liberal-democratic" principles and the "nonliberal, nondemocratic principles". Thus, the section would include what is seen as the democratic legacy and also the totalitarian legacy of the revolution. Of course, I am not eager for an edit war, so I would like to get a consensus on the content of the section. Perhaps, Four Deuces, you would like to take a stab at it. Mamalujo (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject itself is complex and there appears to be no academic consensus. I think it might be better to give detailed descriptions in the historiography article. The author you quoted, Philippe Beneton, provides just one of many views. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

How about more on the revisionist perspective?Lake1789 (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wanted to add pictures

File:Logo de la République française.svg

Logo of the French Revolutionary Government.

Liberty Leading the People, a romantic picture commemorating the French Revolution (Eugène Delacroix)

Federation Day, July 14, 1790 (Charles Thévenin)

Run on the Tuileries, August 10, 1792 (Jean Duplessi-Bertaux)

Charlotte Corday's assassination of Jean Paul Marat, July 9, 1793 (Paul Jacques Aimé Baudry)

The arrest of Robespierre on the night of 9 Thermidor, July 27, 1794 (Jean-Joseph-François Tassaert)

Napoleon Bonaparte in the coup d'état of 18 Brumaire in Saint-Cloud, November 9, 1799

The Coronation of Napoleon, December 2, 1804 (Jacques-Louis David)

The page is locked, but I wanted to cite things, and add pictures.130.39.188.130 (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

RE the above suggestions: This article is on the 1789 French Revolution & even if they agree with its spirit, some of the pictures do not fit the period:

1. Logo de la République française is too modern, too recent. It is the official logo of the present-day French government.
2. La Liberté guidant le peuple, a painting by Eugène Delacroix commemorating the 1830 Revolution, nothing to do with 1789.
3. La Fête de la Fédération (14 July 1790) by Charles Thévenin would be fine.
4. La prise des Tuileries (10 August 1792) by Jean Duplessis-Bertaux is already in article.
5. Assassinat de Marat belongs to articles on Charlotte Corday and Marat.
6. Arrestation de Robespierre would be fine.
7. Bonaparte et le coup d'état du 18 Brumaire (9 November 1799), a close up of same painting is already in article: this whole painting looks better than the close up.
8. Coronation of Napoléon (2 December 1804): does not belong in 1789 French Revolution but in article on Napoléon himself & in that of the First French Empire.

Frania W. (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You should move this section to the bottom of the page, otherwise people will not notice it. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I took these pictures from the other language wikipedia sites, primarily the Spanish one, which is at featured article status. I agree with most of the above criticism (my Spanish is rusty). My suggestions are the following: 1) La prise des Tuileries should use the more colorful version because it is a more accurate representation of the work, and IMHO looks better, although I don't know how to tag the image to redirect to the nicer version, 2) consistent labeling of artist and date. (The coronation comes from the German page, and a depiction of the Marat assassination is on several versions including the French and Italian pages). Additionally a number of the other wikipedias have images of the principle characters. Anyways the page is locked. 72.207.248.117 (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Although the artwork is good (and in several cases well-known), it's a mostly unstated mixture of period images and artwork created several generations after the events. Durova²⁸⁵ 03:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

La Fête de la Fédération would be a great addition to article. Frania W. (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Problematic statements of number of Terror victims

Section 6.3 of this article has a picture of a guilloutine with the caption: "Guillotine: between 18,000 and 40,000 people were executed during the Reign of Terror". This very matter-of-fact statement has no apparent source, and therefore seems problematic. The section text itself, which is sourced, says: "A number of historians note that as many as 40,000 accused prisoners may have been summarily executed without trial or died awaiting trial," without indicating any minimum number. Dying while awaiting trial is also obviously different from being sentenced and executed, particularly by guilloutine as the picture seems to indicate.

At the time of writing this, the main Reign of Terror article says, on the question of estimates: "Estimates vary widely as to how many were killed, with numbers ranging from 16,000 to 40,000; in many cases, records were not kept, or if they were, they are considered likely to be inaccurate," and I'm not sure what the source is for that statement.

This is all very confusing, but there's clearly a difference between 16,000 human lives, 18,000 and 40,000. Since this information pertains to such a serious matter, perhaps we should strive for greater accuracy? Or at least to be more clear about the sources for the figures, and their reliability or lack thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.189.103 (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Article did not mention French poessions New Orleans etc

May I ask what "goverment" the French poessions of North America such as New Orelans ,Louisiana have during French Rvolution? Thanks!(dated PMAfternoonAug24,200921stcnt.Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC"X")ANDREMOI (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Haitian Revolution article has some information on the situation there; as for New Orleans, the territory of Louisiana belonged to Spain between the end of the Seven Years' War and 1800. AlexiusHoratius 22:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Putting it together in simple terms

I know I must sound stupid but I need help. Please help me to understand this subject better by putting it into simpler terms. Thank you. --71.126.145.184 (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Causes section

The causes section mentions the king came to power with financial distress, partially attributed to France's involvement in the American Revolution. However, the rest of the section discusses events beginning before France's involvement in that (though after the Seven Years War), and a look at the King's reign also contradicts this. I know France's involvement in the American Revolution eventually contributed to the French Revolution, but the chronology seems to undermine the introduction to this section. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of this can clarify. --Rybock (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Women in the Revolution

There should be more information on women's activism during the French Revolution, especially their writings. The Revolution was an important starting point for female activism in France. Though they didn't have many, if any, political rights, they were able to express their views, especially through writing, and effect at least temporary change in how they were treated. There should be a link to the "Feminism in France" page which unfortunately only contains about 200 words about feminists in the Revolution. EvaBW (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you give examples of successful "women's activism" and "temporary change & treatment" for women in the French Revolution? Any woman whose head rose above the crowd, such as Olympe de Gouges (Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen, 1791), was swiftly... beheaded! As for the women's march to Versailles, it was a case of super manipulation of women by men. These are two cases of "activism" of women during the French Revolution & it did not take them very far. Frania W. (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I came to read an historical article and instead I see something that has clearly been hijacked by someone with a revisionist agenda. About a quarter of the article is now dedicated to women's issue and it gives the article the feel of a badly written term paper from a first year Women's Studies student. A single paragraph would be more appropriate - and if there really need to be more, a link to a separate article on "The Emergence of the Feminist Movement in France during the Revolution" or some such gobbledygook. Can a Wikipedian with more knowledge of how to edit these things help this out? --216.251.141.90 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of moving the page, one could simply edit and improve it? The French Revolution was not just the domain of men; women both for and against the Revolution made their impact. In fact, I think it could be expanded more to include the counterrevolutionary women as well. If you wish to incorporate more about women in the article at large, that could be an acceptable exchange. The paragraphs about the specific women could be shortened, as long as links were given to their separate pages. But the near complete disregard for women in the rest of the article is appalling. If you wish to change the message and language of the section, by all means do so. But it would not truly be a historical article if it did not talk about women and their effect.ClioFR (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Counter Revolutionary Women: Strong pro-Revolution women were not the only women who took an active part in society during the French Revolution. In fact, as Olwen Hufton notes in her essay "In Search of Counter-Revolutionary Women", "the attempt by women to establish a pattern of religious worship... was the most constructive force one can determine at work in society." Thus, these women had a very significant impact on society during the Revolution and helped usher in a return to religious life and "normalcy". Therefore, it would be helpful to add a section to this page examining the impact of these extraordinary women on the times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stjust11 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Expanding and Citing the "Revolution and the Church"

I am planning on providing citations for the information in the "Revolution and the Church" article. I would also like expand upon the information currently provided. Specifically, the role of the Church before the Revolution and the origins of de-christianization efforts. It would also be suitable to discuss the impact of Voltaire's writings on de-christianization. The legislative acts against the Church during the revolution need to elaborated upon to show the decline in the power of the Church. It would also be beneficial to discuss, more in depth for the main article, the response and resistance of the clergy. The focus of this revision will show how the transfer of the power of the Church to the Republic was the basis of the dechristianization efforts. KMPalma (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting rights

In the second paragraph of the section titled 'Estates-General of 1789' it is stated 'suffrage requirements were: 25 years of age and over six livres paid in taxes." Perhaps I am unaware but I didn't think women had voting rights at this time. I think it is dangerous to let it the reader assume that you are referring only to men. Some young women are lucky enough NOT to know that for most of history, and still most of the women in the world today, are oppressed and their views discounted. I think it's not impossible that some young students would read this and not know that women haven't had the vote for most of history.

It is unreasonable that we should let young people learn to accept that as given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.207.73 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical impact

Some one could most likely tack on a paragraph at the end of this article on the results of this event just for a more clear and concise sort of summary on the revolution and how it impacted France. A little bit on how the Monarchy was abolished for a democratic republic and the ideas of inalienable rights being established. 72.48.20.210 (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There already is a section "Historical Analysis"[4] and an article Historiography of the French Revolution. Interpretating impact of the revolution is highly controversial. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Similarities to English Revolution

Pointless debate here

Could we maybe add a section listing the similarities and differences between the French and English Revolutions? That would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.99.76 (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I can't see the relevance of adding such a section. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC) This article is on the French Revolution, if we start adding a section showing similarities & differences between French & English revolutions, then why not with the American, the Russian, the Chinese & that of every country that has had revolution(s)? Why not La Révolution des Pingouins in Latvia: [5] ??? Frania W. (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC) A comparison of the reformation reforms under Henry VIII and the French Revolution would be more appropriate.Resolutepeasant (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Why? Eldamorie (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Not the reformation. Aint you heard of Oliver Cromwell? His rule was such a disaster that the English actually wanted back the son of the King Charles they had executed. The French should be fearful of seeing the same thing, yet they started a revolution. Never mind King Henry. --85.164.221.69 (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC) also, in response to the earlier question linking english and french revolutions, which english revolution? And, would not the american revolution be better comparison point due to chronological proximity? Or, the early modern society of england in 1689 as a better comparison point to the french revolution in that the english had a more complex economy then the americans, larger population,longer history of interaction throughout europe, presence of aristocratic classes, larger artisanal class, etc? trying to further discussion on the old discussion page. a comparative viewpoint on the atlantic revolutions be it the american, or one of the english revolutions, the haitian revolution, or the Dutch revolution could be a useful addition to the page. Especially as it could help the inexperienced learner connect the forces at work in one revolution to another. Just as the revolutionary movements rippling through the arab world are all different, understanding the egyptian revolt without knowing about tunisia is only half the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.232.166 (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

French Revolution Causes

1. Old Regime: The Three Estates First Estate Church owned 10 percent land paid 2 percent in taxes Second Estate Nobles owned 20 percent of land and paid 1 percent taxes Third Estate 98 percent of population working class merchants paid half to taxes The third Estate was out numbered in voting and wanted to have voting with population so everyone was counted they were exploited 2. Economic Problems Population Growth Business could not make money because of high taxes Bad Weather Drought led to famine poor crops The price of bread doubled too expensive for third estate and it was the main source of food 3.Weak Leader Lois XVI spent too much money borrowed to help America defeat Britain Indecisive Did not want to govern his country 4.Marie Antoinette Spent Millions 5.Enlightenment Inspired peasants to revolt 6.American Revolution Inspired peasants served as a model of freedom 7.Dept Desperation Bad Economy -RjR —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeekerR (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

influences

"Looking to the Declaration of Independence of the United States for a model, on 26 August 1789, the Assembly published the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen."

Can we get a citation for this? I've never come across such a claim before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.216.208 (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the claim. Both the US and French revolutionaries looked to Englightenment ideals, but this claim seems dubious. TFD (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

People commit suicide at Louis's execution?

The section about Lious XVI's execution says "Others in the crowd went mad, slit their throats or jumped into the river Seine[57]". I find this extremely hard to believe. It goes on to clarify that "according to historian Adam Zamoyski this was not so much due to their love for the King but as he was seen as a representative of God on earth". That's utter nonsense. The revolutionaries were either Catholic, and thus viewed the pope as God's representative on Earth, or else atheist. Many people at the time did believe that kings were born into their power by God, but they certainly didn't think he was a representative of God. Plus this was an open revolution against the king. Quotes from the book please? Any more evidence? Otherwise it seems like a WP:FRINGE theory.--178.167.176.199 (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The source is a book is by Adam Zamoyski. You can read his words here] on pp. 1-2. Certainly the monarchy had strong support among some sections of the population, and they believed in the divine right of kings. TFD (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Albert Camus, « L’homme révolté », La Pléiade, 1951, pp. 528-529.[6]

• Les révolutionnaires peuvent se réclamer de l’Évangile. En fait, ils portent au Christianisme un coup terrible, dont il ne s’est pas encore relevé. Il semble vraiment que l’exécution du Roi, suivie, on le sait, de scènes convulsives, de suicides ou de folie, s’est déroulée tout entière dans la conscience de ce qui s’accomplissait. Louis XVI semble avoir, parfois, douté de son droit divin, quoiqu’il ait refusé systématiquement tous les projets de loi qui portaient atteinte à sa foi. Mais à partir du moment où il soupçonne ou connaît son sort, il semble s’identifier, son langage le montre, à sa mission divine, pour qu’il soit bien dit que l’attentat contre sa personne vise le Roi-Christ, l’incarnation divine, et non la chair effrayée de l’homme. Son livre de chevet, au Temple, est « L’Imitation de Jésus-Christ ».

--Frania W. (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

a couple of points. We can't use Camus (it would be OR, and he's not a RS on French history). It would be good to use Zamoyski but that would require a new section of at least 250 words (and preferably a new article) on reactions to the death of the king, a subject that many historians besides Zamoyski have written about and that need to be covered. Rjensen (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would using Camus be OR??? Is not a book where information is found a secondary source? He did the research, not I or anyone reading what he wrote.

--Frania W. (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Camus was not an historian and did not submit his work to peer review. While I do not doubt he was accurate, the only way to know this would be by comparing his work with that of historians. TFD (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This amuses me tremendously... Related to this article, I could quote to you parts out of those on Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette & Louis XVII that are so filled with unquestioned trivia found in books whose authors could not possibly have the respect of historians. The article on Louis XVII bathes in trivia and out of its eight footnotes, not one brings anything valuable from a serious historian. The whole biography section goes on with hardly a footnote; however, this one, in Romanian from a Romanian historian ??? is more acceptable by Wikipedia's standards than anything Albert Camus could write?

• name="Dauphin">(in Romanian) http://convorbiri-literare.dntis.ro/PLATONmai4.html "The Reeducation of The Dauphin," by Mircea Platon, Convorbiri Literare, May 2004

Someone please show me Mircea Platon's peer review !

--Frania W. (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you find poorly sourced articles you should try to improve them. TFD (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Camus appears to simply be reporting something that is seen as common knowledge. He isn't asserting the existence of these "scenes of suicide and madness," he's using the apparently well-known fact of their existence as evidence of another point he is making. At the same time, if it is such common knowledge, we ought to be able to find a better source than a passing reference in a Camus essay. john k (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

TFD It just happens that I do not have the time to correct all the articles that I find "poorly sourced". If you would care to look at the history of my revisions, you would see that I do contribute quite a bit to Wikipedia, often in depth; (un)fortunately, there is life outside Wikiland & I shall take care of Louis XVII & Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette & others when I have more time or when I get stuck at home during a snowstorm. The only reason I brought them up was to point out to you the fact that what is strictly demanded here on Camus is totally ignored in other articles.

--Frania W. (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not telling you what to do, merely stating what reliable sources are. TFD (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)