Talk:French Revolution/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Cultural depictions

The cultural depictions always need a separate section because there are many of them, mine was just the first Cote d'Azur 08:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur (talk • contribs)

The "bloody stuff"

"After he was executed, some of the citizens who witnessed the beheading ran forth to have their clothes soaked in the late King's blood, dripping from his head."

Why should this sentence of an event recognised by historians - and not only by "non-expert" Albert Camus - be removed from text? - "bloody stuff", maybe, but the French Revolution was a "bloody affair", no need here to be politically correct.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of bad taste to exult in the killing process. Camus was not especially well informed in history and cannot be treated as a RS.Rjensen (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen, here I am not talking about Camus. Historians not particularly known for their love of sensationalism do not seem to exult [1] when speaking of the gory details of the French Revolution. The scene that happened immediately after the beheading of Louis XVI is described by Evelyne Lever, spécialiste de l'histoire de l'Ancien Régime, ingénieur de recherche au CNRS, in her book Louis XVI, Fayard, 1985, p. 666; and also in Simon Schama's Citizens, Knopf, 1989, p. 670.

A horrifying scene is a horrifying scene, and if it is a real event of history, why should it be ignored or censured out of an article?

By the way, you replaced the lines you cut out by the following: "Queen, Marie Antoinette, went to the guillotine on 16 October. Royalty across Europe was horrified and prepared for war." Isn't the word horrified a bit strong to describe the feelings of royalty across Europe after the execution of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette? And, how do we know that they were "horrified"? Marie-Antoinette's own brother, Franz II, does not seem to have given much of a hoot [2] about his sister's predicament after her husband had been gently put away.

--Frania W. (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, a few points. Firstly, is this incident of such importance that it deserves to be mentioned in hat can only be a brief introduction to the revolution? I don't remember Doyle talking about it in the Oxford History of the French Revolution, which is a much longer introduction to the subject. It perhaps belongs in the article about Louis XVI himself, or in a specific article about his trial and execution, if there is one, but probably not in the general article about the Revolution. Secondly, Franz II was Marie Antoinette's nephew, not her brother. Her brother, Leopold II, had died in March 1792, before the fall of the monarchy in France. Rjensen's statement that Frania doesn't like seems problematic, though. In the first place, it seems to imply that the powers of Europe prepared for war after the execution of Marie Antoinette. That's not true, and, in general, we should talk about the execution of Marie Antoinette in the context of the terror, when it occurred, not in the context of the execution of her husband. It was a separate action undertaken at a different time for different reasons. Secondly, I don't think we should attribute the origins of the war to the execution of the king, either. Austria and Prussia had gone to war with France even before the fall of the monarchy (The Battle of Valmy had occurred on the same day as the proclamation of the Republic, iirc). Britain and the Dutch Republic, it is true, went to war with France after the execution of Louis XVI, but this had much more to do with the French occupation of Belgium, which had begun in November 1792, than with the execution of the king, which was largely an excuse. Only Spain and Naples really went to war with France largely because of the execution of the king. john k (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

the text follows numerous historians--here are some recent examples of how historians treat the reaction to the execution of the king: "as horrified royalty throughout Europe looked on, Louis was executed" [Jonathan Randall White - 1996]; in Spain "The execution of Louis XVI horrified the court and outraged the country" [Rodrigo Botero 2001]; "horrified Corsica as well as Europe" [Steven Englund -2004]; " horrified the landed elite in Britain" [Ellis Wasson; 2009] Rjensen (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that all those examples pertain to the execution of the king, not of Marie Antoinette. I would agree that horror was the response in much of Europe to the executions, and especially among royalty. What I was arguing against was the implication that that horror was the principal cause of the war against revolutionary France; it was not. john k (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict, so what follows is not an answer to comment by Rjensen (FW):

1) Sorry about the mix-up brother/nephew: the point I was trying to make was that Franz II did not seem to care about his aunt to the point of having been "horrified".

2) Regarding the "bloody stuff", there since May 2009, and referenced to Doyle p. 331, then, on 20 July 2009, to which Zamoyski's Holy Madness & Camus' The Rebel were added : why the disdain here toward Camus while some very doubtful "historians" are allowed in other articles without the flinching of an eyelid?

3) Scrolling up & down the history of this article, I notice that, on 7 May 2009, the template This section requires expansion was added to the section "Execution of Louis XVI",while the "bloody stuff" was already there, filling half the section.

4) If details pertaining to the death of Louis XVI and reaction of some in the crowd do not belong in the section with the title "Execution of Louis XVI", why have such a section? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a section named "Trial and execution of Louis XVI"? The trial of the king, a very important event of the French Revolution is no where to be seen, except for these few lines (47 words underlined) preceding the "bloody part" in the "execution" section:

• In the Brunswick Manifesto, the Imperial and Prussian armies threatened retaliation on the French population if it were to resist their advance or the reinstatement of the monarchy. This made Louis appear to be conspiring with the enemies of France. 17 January 1793 saw Louis condemned to death for "conspiracy against the public liberty and the general safety" by a close majority in Convention: 361 voted to execute the king, 288 voted against, and another 72 voted to execute him subject to a variety of delaying conditions. The former Louis XVI, now simply named Citoyen Louis Capet (Citizen Louis Capet), was executed by guillotine on 21 January 1793 on the Place de la Révolution, former Place Louis XV, now called the Place de la Concorde.

--Frania W. (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that it would make a lot more sense to have a section that dealt with the trial, as well. The trial was, I think, far more important than the execution itself, in terms of setting up the conflict between the Mountain and the Girondins. I don't necessarily have any objection to the material you discuss being in this article, I just think it seems like a strange thing to focus on. john k (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What got me arguing about that material was Camus being "denied the right to speak" on the subject because not an historian, and also the fact that the French Revolution was a bloody historical event that cannot be handled with velvet gloves.

Again, in a section called "the execution of Louis XVI", the material has its place there, otherwise, what are we to talk about? Pigeons flying over the Place de la Révolution? However, if we have a section developing the (historically speaking very important) trial, a "play" of which the execution of the king is the last "scene", then it is a different story, which would end with the sentence: "Louis XVI was guillotined on 21 January 1793 on the Place de la Révolution." Details of what happened after the execution would then have their place in the article on Louis XVI.

--Frania W. (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit late chiming in here, but, I just wanted to note that it's an interesting piece of History that speaks to the level of hatred these people had for their King, that they wanted his blood on their clothing... Gory or not, it communicates an idea... and without a real solid reason for removing it other than someone's OPINION about the level of validity there is to it, where else would you recommend we find out this important tidbit of info? Should it just be deleted from history altogether? I think it's important. JudgeX (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It should not be "deleted from history altogether" no more than knee splitter during the Inquisition or waterboarding in a recent conflict, the name of which I have forgotten...

--Frania W. (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of a phrase

While reading this article I came across the term "Financial Dictatorship" and was thoroughly confused. Could anyone shed some light on this phrase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.210.145 (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The American Revolution

Two things. First, the article says this:

Another cause was France's near bankruptcy as a result of the many wars fought by Louis XV and in particular the financial strain caused by French participation in the American Revolutionary War.

Is this quantifiable? The AR page says 7,800 troops sent to aid the Colonies and at least one ship. Doesn't sound like much financial strain. Is the above statement slanted towards a particular viewpoint?

Also, I'm curious if the American Revolution had any effect on the thinking of the revolutionaries in France. That is, was it influential? If so, why leave it out? Seems like there was some interchange of ideas and at the very least Ben Franklin spent a lot of time in Paris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynasteria (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to military support, France provided substantial financial support to the American Revolution. And no the the Founding Fathers did not have influence upon the thinking of French revolutionaries. TFD (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

it says on the Causes of the French Revolution page "The American Revolution demonstrated that it was plausible for Enlightenment ideas about how a government should be organized could actually be put into practice. Some American diplomats, like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, had lived in Paris where they consorted freely with members of the French intellectual class. Furthermore, contact between American revolutionaries and the French troops who served as anti-British mercenaries in North America helped spread revolutionary ideals to the French people. After a time, many of the French began to attack the undemocratic nature of their own government, push for freedom of speech, challenge the Roman Catholic Church, and decry the prerogatives of the nobles.[3]" should that be mentioned on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.3 (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"One ship?" Ye gads--rather a lot more than that. See, for exampleBattle_of_the_Chesapeake. Ever wonder why Cornwallis didn't just leave Yorktown? The French Navy wouldn't let him. British strategy had been predicated on being able to put an army down or whisk one away again wherever there was a foot of water. The French crown spent a lot of money on the American war.--98.88.249.90 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

the French had already spent alot of money to rebuild their navy after the seven years war. Even so, they still failed to defeat the royal navy, although they did prevent cornwallis from being resupplied at yorktown. Nevertheless France was already on the road to financial collapse and Revolution. Their whole financial system was outdated, the intervention in American Revolution was just the straw that broke the camel's backVoucherman (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

/* Further reading */ add new book

since this is one of the most important topics in world history, I added a further reading section which will point users to the main reference books and scholarly studies, many of which will be available in typical academic librariesRjensen (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon's "dictatorship"

It can be argued Napoleon was not a dictator as First Consul. A dictator, in Rome, had both decreed and applied the law; moreoever, he was not elected by the people. In no sense, then, can Napoleon be called a dictator. Actually, on the contrary, if democracy is a system under which the whole people confides the government to magistrates of its choice elected for a limited period, then by the new Constitution France would be entering upon democracy. Although much of the governmental power was on Bonaparte, he did not wield absolute and supreme power, and his actions were very much limited by a intact government.

Although that all-powerful position of First Consul had the power to propose legislation, it was the specialized sections of the Council of State that wrote them: finance, legislation, war, navy, interior. There was no secrecy; the ministers attended the meetings and the consuls' approval was required to enact a law.

Either way, however, for the sake of being neutral, the text:

"This effectively led to Bonaparte's dictatorship and eventually (in 1804) to his proclamation as Empereur (emperor), which brought to a close the specifically republican phase of the French Revolution."

Should be replaced by:

"This effectively led to Bonaparte becoming the leader of France and eventually (in 1804) to his proclamation as Empereur (emperor), which brought to a close the specifically republican phase of the French Revolution."

I could also argue that Napoleon was still very much the republican that he was before becoming Emperor, but that is a discussion for another time.

-Talon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.19.17 (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Necker

What were the chief reasons of Necker's failures? It wasn't very well explained. TYelliot (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Necker's Report - inaccuracy?

This line (from the Pre-revolution Financial Crisis section) "Necker published a report to support this claim that underestimated the deficit by roughly 36,000 livres, and proposed restricting the spending power of the parlements." may be incorrect in regards to the underestimated amount. 36,000 livres seems like a trivial amount compared to the budgets of the day, which seem to be in the hundreds of millions (at least, from what I could find in the Jaques Necker article). Perhaps there is a source for this figure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.7.205 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Role of Jacques-Louis David

I am thinking about adding more on David's portrayal of revolutionary events. He's an important figure in cultural and political events and really deserves more attention.ClioFR (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Symbolism during the French Revolution

I am proposing an expansion on symbolism during the French Revolution. The figure of Hercules was a central figure of the monarchy and was then adapted to be a symbol of revolutionary glory. I think that this topic can be a useful tool to show how classical mythology was used during the Revolution. It can also show how revolutionary leaders still kept remnants of the Monarchy. Wavesworld (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Symbols of the French Revolution

We are a small class group that is looking to contribute a small article about some symbols of the French Revolution. We are currently planning to describe the uses and reasons behind the red bonnet and Phrygian cap; the triangle; and the serpent. We chose one symbol from each group of symbol creation- either to replace an older religious symbol, to make a symbol that is easily recognizable, or to introduce a new working-class symbol. Our alternative plan is to work with another class group that is studying the French Republic seal, and we would analyze the symbols used in the seal.

Solidnitrogen (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Revolution and the Church section

In the paragraph about the Civil Constitution of the Church, why in the world is the latter half of that paragraph about stuff that happened after the National Assembly was dissolved, under Napoleon's rule? That stuff, like the Concordat of 1801, should be relocated to the subsection relating to Napoleon, not the National Assembly.

98.82.128.180 (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Flight to Varennes

Of course, we must recognize that Louis XVI was publicly supportive of the Constitution of 1791 (having sworn an oath to uphold it) while leaving behind a letter abjuring his oath on the flight to Montmedy. His wife was also exposed as a spy, having reported to France's enemies of troop movements, etc. Presenting him as merely 'opposed to the course of the revolution' and offering no other explanation of the flight to Varennes (in fact, the article suggests he intentionally avoided 'treacherous' relationships (!)) is a de facto exoneration of what, to many French people at the time was high treason. This is a neutral assessment because this is how it appeared to people at the time. The assessment in the article is more or less pro-Louis. Maurizio689 (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Requests for citation

I notice there are quite a few requests for citation on some basic facts about the course of the Revolution. I believe most of this could be cited from Mignet, if anyone wishes to take the time to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say: glad to see recent use of Soboul and Lefebvre as sources. I've read them, but it was decades ago and I don't have copies. - Jmabel | Talk 18:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph

The intro paragraph states: The modern era has unfolded in the shadow of the French Revolution. The growth of republics and liberal democracies, the spread of secularism, the development of modern ideologies and the invention of total war[2] all mark their birth during the Revolution. --

This intro is very Eurocentric. Liberal democracies existed before the French Revolution (The United States), secularism was not born during this time, the "development of modern ideologies" is ambiguous, and "total war" certainly wasn't invented during this period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.56.170 (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Even though the American Revolution in some ways did influence the French, there is no getting around the fact that the French Revolution had far greater resonance in the political landscape in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries than the American. That was simply because France was one of the most powerful nations in Europe, so what happened there was followed closely by all the other European countries, and eventually also in the colonies. This is also why the other concepts you mention, although possibly not invented at the time, was spread and popularised particularly through this event. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Chronological

In order to prevent User:Hashem sfarim from getting into trouble from edit-warring and lack of assuming good faith, I am starting this section. I am not in favour of the addition of a list of a chronological table of the events to this article. The article is long enough as it is, and all the events mentioned are included in the actual article text. To my knowledge chronological tables are only used in articles as a temporary solution to include important facts that have yet to be added to the actual article text. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User has respectfully agreed to not add the content and has been redirected to Timeline of the French Revolution where his edits could prove to be very useful. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead expansion

I reverted this addition to the lead. Not that an expansion isn't warranted, it may be considering the length of the article, but the wording was not encyclopedic and it also just repeated much of the information already contained in the lead. It also contained too many peacock expressions ("feeble", "fabled", "epic" etc) as well as weaselwording (enlightenment and rightful hierarchy in what looks like sarcastic apostrophes). It is a positive thing not to use too dry a prose, but it can also get too flowery. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 207.239.82.254, 16 September 2011

hj0othihrhjibrderhewhgrpobuerpobiur4n]igw herro prease

207.239.82.254 (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: No specific request apparent. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 15 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the introductory section, please replace

French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from radical left-wing political groups and the masses on the streets.

with

French society underwent and epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from an impoverished and desperate peasant class.

CTJen (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

the current text is more accurate. The Assembly made the changes and it contained radical politicians, not poor peasants. Indeed the delegates were elected chiefly by the middle class. The term "left wing" was coined at the time because the more radical delegates sat on the left side and the more conservative ones on the right. Rjensen (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, a lot of work has been done in the last three decades to show that there was a massive political and social upheaval in the countryside that was influenced by and interacted with, but wasn't strictly directed by "radicals" in Paris. Given the demographic weight of the peasantry in pre-revolutionary France, mentioning a poor and desperate peasant class makes sense. I'm not favoring a change in text however because something important is captured by the current text that would be lost with the proposed edit. -Darouet (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to the edit-request: There's one person advocating the change, one objecting, and one in the middle. I sort-of agree with the latter, that the current wording is helpful to understanding, but I can also understand the conceptual point that the original requestor makes. So - because any active semi-protected edit-requests must be very simple, or must show clear consensus, I can't change it right now, and have cancelled out the request for now.

Discussion can continue here, and if there is consensus for a change, please make a new request. Thanks for your understanding.  Chzz  ►  05:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

How about...

French society underwent a massive transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from the left-wing political groups and peasants.

The adjectives of "impoverished" and "desperate" are as leading as if the text would state something along the lines of...

"French society underwent an epic transformation as inherited and engrained feudal, aristocratic and oppressive religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from the righteous peasants.

Shearonink (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

that's better--but leave the peasants out. They were not politically active at this point.Rjensen (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC).

I kind of get your point but in my opinion this sentence is referring to the complete collapse of all pre-war societal norms and its time-frame is not strictly defined. If we are to take the time-frame as being the entire French Revolution time-period of 1789-1799 (as referenced in the first sentence of that paragraph) then it would be proper to reference the involvement of the peasants. After all, the Left Wing'ers did not and could not have accomplished the complete change of French society by themselves. However, if we are to take the timeline of the proposed change as meaning the three years it took the monarchy to completely deflate then including the "peasants" as a class might not be completely appropriate. How about...

"French society underwent a massive transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from the left-wing political groups and the masses."

Shearonink (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that last sentence shows no real change from the original sentence at all. But that is fine with me: the original sentence is perhaps not perfect but it is better than any of the edits that have been suggested so far. Why should we rewrite it to give all credit for the revolution to the peasantry? That's simply incorrect. Just to reach for one handy example: the Estates General was certainly not convened because of an assault by peasants, however desperate and righteous they might have been.... SteveStrummer (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the consensus is about the sentence or the article's content is not a problem to me, just trying to address some of the concerns people have posted about. The major change I already made to the sentence in the article was to adjust the Wiki-linkage to the correct terminology/article re: Left-wing. Also in this context, using both "radical" and "left-wing" is unnecessary in my opinion so I would remove radical from the proposed change as well. Perhaps the sentence as it now stands is fine with everyone? Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Amazing how a few words can mean so much! I've pulled out my copy of Michel Vovelle's "La Revolution Francaise," which is a standard introductory textbook for college students in France, and attempts to integrate classical, republican and revisionist work (it was recommended to me by a professor of French history and specifically revolutionary history while I was in France; she was something of a "post-revisionist"). In a section titled "The three revolutions of 1789," Vovelle writes,

"One can speak of three [revolutions] in the summer of 1789: an institutional or parliamentary revolution at the top, a municipal or urban revolution, and a peasant revolution. From a pedagogical perspective this presentation can prove useful... [a few pages later] That which we call the peasant revolution is not a repetition of the urban: it has, according to the evidence, its own rhythm, and "war aims." After the initial uprisings in the spring of 1789, agrarian revolts expanded into many regions (in the north, en Hainaut, in the west, in the bocage of Normandy, just as in the east, Haut-Alsace and Franche-Comte, and then Maconnais): primarily anti-nobility, often burning down castles, violent, and sometimes forcefully repressed. In the context of these localized revolts, the second half of July saw the emergence of another movement both similar but also different: the Great Fear, that would involve over half of the territory of France. This collective panic can be interpreted as the altered echo, repeated in the countrysides, of the urban revolutions. This trope is both simple and complex; the villagers had run for their weapons at the announcement of imaginary dangers: Piedmontese in the Alps, English on the coast, 'brigands' everywhere. Propagated by contact, this fear soon dissipated, but extended within a few days to the entire realm. It awakened the agrarian revolt and was prolonged by the pillaging of castles and destruction, by fire, of seigniorial privileges. In this light, the Great Fear is more than a movement, as argues Michelet, "come from the depths of ages:" it expresses the mobilization of peasant masses and symbolizes their official entry into the Revolution."

Vovelle, Michel, "La Revolution Francaise: 1789-1799," pp.16-18. Armand Colin, Paris: 2006

While the Great Fear can be and is interpreted in many ways, most historians recognize that there was a large scale mobilization of the peasantry in the the summer of 1789 that preceded (and perhaps also followed) the events of 4 August. Because an epic transformation" of French society includes the abolition of feudalism, which is not unrelated to the burning of castles in the countryside by peasants, a reasonable change to the current text might simply be the following:

"French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from radical or left-wing political groups, masses on the streets, and peasants in the countryside."

As to "radical" and "left-wing," I find it difficult to argue that the Jacobins in general or Montagnards would not be described by both terms, especially in the context of the 18th century. -Darouet (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Like. I agree with your point about radical and/or left-wing but with my changes above I had been considering that both terms now have come to have pejorative shadings that were not necessarily present in the historical application. Good job. Shearonink (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think that's a fine way to write it. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

The first sentence doesn't seem to make much sense.

"The French Revolution, sometimes distinguished as the 'Great French Revolution', was a period of radical social and political upheaval in French and European."

It should be "... radical social and political upheaval in France and Europe." 174.93.67.107 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeesh. Fixed. Thanks! SteveStrummer (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Democracy

This is a small point, but the reference to democracy has been removed from the first paragraph. It was removed because "it sounds judgmental." However the term in this case is not being employed as a value judgement (and I grant that this can be done in various contexts) but rather describes the transition from an absolute monarchy in 1789 to census suffrage and then universal male suffrage in 1793-94. Any objections to my placing the word back in? -Darouet (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I object. Democracy means a lot more than elections. It means not beheading your political opponents. Rjensen (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the initial objection was to the parenthetical adjective - i.e. "(briefly) democracy" - which may or may not have been editorializing, but to me it doesn't matter: the term has no practical application here at all. I think democracy can only be used as a poetic term in descriptions of Revolutionary aspirations: no actual phase of "democracy" ever existed. (As RJ soundly notes, the Reign of Terror really doesn't qualify as a successful experiment in democracy.) What the French had at all times was republicanism, and that was how most of them wanted it. Only the most determined idealists among them ever suggested that it could or should develop into Athenian-style democracy. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I tentatively agree that the term "democracy" is less applicable than "republicanism," for instance: a cursory search through one volume of Robespierre's complete works shows that the second term appears about an order of magnitude more frequently than the first. Would a reference to republicanism suffice? What is the rationale for excluding a reference to the transition to suffrage and electoral bodies, perhaps one of the most astonishing aspects of the event as a whole? -Darouet (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify a little, French Historian Maurice Genty from the Institut d'Histoire de la Revolution francaise (IHRF) writes two entries in Soboul's "Dictionnaire historique de la Revolution francaise," one on direct democracy and the other on representative democracy. I won't do these articles justice, but in general Genty argues that both conceptions of democracy traced back, in various ways, to Rousseau and his own influences. From Rousseau's Social Contract: "A general will must include all voices... any formal exclusion breaks this generality... All individuals who comprise an association have the inalienable right to work together towards the creation of laws, and if any may have his particular will heard, the union of all these wills forms the general will... We give to this form of government the name democracy." Genty argues that different political factions (and perhaps social forces?) in the revolution had different views on either direct or representative democracy, with the Sans-Culottes favoring the former, and others like Sieyes, Brissot favoring the latter. Of course you will both know about the debates over a unicameral versus bicameral legislature (similar to the debates held in the United States), know that suffrage changed from 1789 to 1791, to 1793, to 1795... and also know that Rousseau was a tremendous intellectual influence on Jefferson in the States, for instance, or Robespierre in France. Quoting Robespierre on 15 April 1793: "The human species is divided among two classes of men, which is to say, those who oppress the people and those who love liberty. The first want a constitution of despotism; the others, a constitution of freedom, founded upon the happiness of all and that of every individual; a constitution made by all themselves, under a democratic name." I also notice that more conservative political journals (Journal of the Nobility, Journal of Louis XVI and his people) refer contemptuously to Robespierre as a democrat.

As Rjensen points out, political elements or characters like Robespierre are ultimately participants in the Terror, arguably rule despotically through the committee of public safety, brutally crush the Vendee. But this isn't a discussion of those important things, it's a discussion of the change in political sovereignty during the course of the revolution, of suffrage, and democracy as defined in Wikipedia itself, not far from what Rousseau himself writes: [from Wikipedia] "a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination." -Darouet (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

On Rousseau, he's certainly important in France (but not in the US)....I think democracy has to refer to a long-term system or you can't say people had much voice--two years is too short to take root and show people their strengths and weaknesses. That reminds me of a claim about the "fairest election in European history" which turned out to be the Russian election of 1917, which was overthrown in a matter of months, as was the french experiment in democracy. Soboul is not a useful RS these days--he died 30 years ago and his rigid Stalinist Communism is not a very pretty model of true democracy--outside of North Korea anyway. Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. I'm mostly familiar with the historiography, and also the personal political views of Soboul and Furet (I don't share either, but that's irrelevant). One of the virtues of Soboul's volume is that he recruited a vast array of scholars to contribute the articles; it is still being published by PUF/Quadrige. Rather than concentrate on Cold War historiography, which is a vast and unresolved literature, I think we should simply decide on the basis of what we understand about the French Revolution itself if

1)The expansion of suffrage in the French Revolution is relevant to democracy

2)Whether democracy has a more literary, essentially weasel word character, or refers to voting, etc

3)Whether the short lived nature of suffrage expansion in the revolution precludes characterizing it such that it should be referenced alongside other principles in this sentence: "Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy - of monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority - were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship and inalienable rights."

Obviously this doesn't have to be resolved now. Though it's a major theoretical point, this is, after all, one word in the article. -Darouet (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it's necessary at the encyclopedia level to introduce such fine points about political theory, particularly those fraught with volatile value judgments. Wikipedia history articles should, I think, be heavy on the facts and light on the interpretation. And by the way: if one uses such a method, Soboul is still (even a whole 30 years later) an excellent RS. His own accounting of facts and events is supported by a type of investigative detail quite unmatched by most historians, and his authority regarding the objective facts of the Revolution remains equal to (or better than) any that have been seen since. If his undeniably well-honed assessments can be disputed (even contemptuously so), that only proves the point about the limited role that historical interpretation should have here. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Darouet has asked me to comment on the edit that I made back in May of 2006 viz. "a major turning point in the history of Western democracy—from the age of absolutism and aristocracy, to the age of the citizenry as the dominant political force." According to Darouet, this later evolved to "Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy - of monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority - were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship, inalienable rights, as well as nationalism and (briefly) democracy," although he didn't say whether I was responsible for the second form of the idea. Quite honestly, I have no recollection of making either of those edits, let alone what my reasoning was in making them. Frankly, it sounds like I plagiarized some source to get the first text. All I can say is that it was five years ago and this is not an article that I have been actively involved in since.

That said, I do think that the French Revolution was a "a major turning point in the history of Western democracy". It needs to be included in a list that includes the Magna Carta, the English Revolution and the American Revolution. IMO, the debate about whether or not democracy existed, even briefly, during the French Revolution is perhaps missing the point. The problem with the debate is that it centers on whether or not democracy existed while the sentence is talking about "old ideas" being "abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles". Thus, we should be talking about the ideals that were in play, not the actuality that failed to achieve those ideals. From this perspective, I don't think nationalism belongs in this list as I believe that is a development that arose in the mid-nineteenth century (around the time of the formation of Germany and Italy although arguably earlier with the independence of Greece and the Megali Idea). However, I do think democracy is an "Enlightenment principle" and therefore should be included in the sentence.

I also note that the end of the introduction makes the important point: "The growth of republics and liberal democracies, the spread of secularism, the development of modern ideologies and the invention of total war[3] all mark their birth during the Revolution." Once again, it's not a question of how much democracy actually existed during the French Revolution. It's a question of whether democracy was one of the driving principles and whether later democratic movements looked back at the French Revolution and drew inspiration from it. I note that the English Revolution did depose and execute a monarch but that the dynastic line was ultimately restored. The American Revolution did establish a lasting democracy but it did not depose a monarch. The French Revolution deposed and executed a monarch, ending his dynastic line but failed to establish a lasting democracy. For all its failures, the French Revolution had an important influence on the revolutionary and democratic movements of 19th century Europe.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC) "Although the British had pioneered constitutional and representative government, it was the French Revolution of 1789 that most dramatically challenged political absolutism and popularized democratic ideas throughout the continent." [3] - What I said. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your point, Pseudo-Richard. The ideas voiced during the French Revolution (but only partly, if ever implemented at the time), especially the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, had an immense influence on the democratic movements in the 19th century, not least in the events unfolding during the Revolutions of 1848. As such it is perfectly viable to write that it was "a major turning point in the history of Western democracy". --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

We'll need to come up with an objective rationale for decoupling the concept of democracy from suffrage and representation; what democracy will then mean should be founded neither upon our subjective interpretation of its "value" (outside the definition given by Wikipedia for instance) nor upon our subjective interpretation of how "successful" the revolution was. It still isn't clear to me what these criteria are. -Darouet (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that approach makes things way too complicated and, in attempting to pursue it, we would wind up in a tarpit from which we would never get out. Suffice it to say that many of the principles of democracy were ideals that were held up during the French Revolution even if, in practice, these principles were either not achieved or achieved only briefly. Moreover, it was perhaps not so much the actual successful implementation of these principles that inspired democratic movements in the 19th and 20th centuries as it was the idea that such principles could and should guide political reform and revolution. (i.e. the French revolutionists failed to achieve their ideals but it was a noble effort and we can and should pursue the same ideals) That's all we need to say. We may be better off saying "democratic ideals such as suffrage, representation, human rights" than just "democracy" which, as you rightly point out, is not susceptible to an easy and neat definition. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pseudo-Richard and add that it was Napoleon who spread the ideals of the French revolution throughout Europe, as in his legal reforms. Napoleon did not bring democracy. Rjensen (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The ideas were recieved and applauded by writers, statesmen and thinkers all over Europe long before Napoleon. It is true that some of the elements and rhetoric they were further proliferated by him, but it is not correct to categorically claim that it was Napoleon that spread the ideals of the French revolution throughout Europe. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Restating what I think we all agree with: the democratic ideals were not uniquely French but rather from the Enlightenment. The French Revolution was just the first opportunity/attempt to realize those ideals. Saddhiyama is correct in this regard.

However, I don't think that was Rjensen's point. What Rjensen is saying is that the certain elements of the Revolution's reforms such as the Napoleonic code were spread throughout Europe by Napoleon. I'm going out on a limb here but I think this represents a step forward in the "rule of law" over the "rule of man". Which is NOT to say that all that went before was the arbitrary "rule of man" but laws were far less systematically laid out before the Napoleonic Code whose concept of a unified code of law superseded the patchwork of feudal laws that preceded it. And yes, we have to recognize that there were the Codex Maximilianeus bavaricus civilis(Bavaria, 1756), the Allgemeines Landrecht (Prussia, 1794) and the West Galician Code (Galicia, then part of Austria, 1797). However, as the article on the Napoleonic Code says, " It was,... the first modern legal code to be adopted with a pan-European scope and it strongly influenced the law of many of the countries formed during and after the Napoleonic Wars. The Code, with its stress on clearly written and accessible law, was a major step in replacing the previous patchwork of feudal laws." --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the elaboration (although I was aware he was referring to the Napoleonic Code). However, I find this only tangentially related to the question discussed here, namely whether it is apt to describe the French Revolution as "a major turning point in the history of Western democracy". This is a question regarding the history of ideas, and how the ideals of democracy where transmitted by the events in France. As such this is not really related to either the practice of actual democracy in Revolutionary France or the effect of Napoleons supremacy in Europe. The ideas were spread quite independently of this, and kept influencing political movements in Europe until their relative culmination in the liberal revolutions in 1848. I don't think you will encounter any historian in the field of history of ideas that questions the ideological effect of the French Revolution in this regard. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Because we haven't come up with a rationale for defining democracy as something unrelated to suffrage and representation, I still don't see the rationale for removing the term democracy from the original sentence being discussed: "Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy - of monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority - were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship, inalienable rights and democracy." -Darouet (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional Section Under War and Counter-Revolution (1792-1797) on Uprising in Lyon

I would like to consider adding a small sub-section on the counter-revolutionary activity in Lyon. I see that there is a page on the Revolt of Lyon Against the National Convention, but I feel that a brief synopsis and link under the counter-revolution section of the main French Revolution page explaining the importance of this event would be appropriate and beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedd2736 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 March 2012

Reference 93 is wrong, universal suffrage did not exist in the 1793 and the reference itself does not indicate this. Page 244 of the Oxford History of the French Revolution, Doyle states: "The constitution of 1793 provided a unicameral legislature elected annually by direct manhood suffrage, and the legislature would choose the executive council" The sentence "Furthermore, the universal suffrage of 1793 was replaced by limited suffrage based on property." should read as "Furthermore, the manhood suffrage of 1793 was replaced by limited suffrage based on property."

Jgbh (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Done The phrase 'universal male suffrage' was already used twice in the article, so I used that in place of 'manhood suffrage'. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is Monaco not mentioned

In 1793, Revolutionary forces captured Monaco and it remained under direct French control until 1814, when the Grimaldis returned to the throne. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/2530539.stm http://www.monaco-consulate.com/index.php/about/history/

Thanks, B-watchmework (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome to add the information yourself. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

An exaggerated sentence

At the end of the article, it says, "The Revolution represented the most significant and dramatic challenge to political absolutism up to that point in history". I think the ancient Athenians would have a thing or two to say about that statement. They were experimenting with similar ideas before France (or liberalism) even existed. So can we please temper the language in that sentence?108.175.231.17 (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

the Greeks talked a lot in their tiny little states, but the French Revolution was MUCH bigger than anything they did. Rjensen (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Intro Edit?

The first sentence is pretty awkward and redundant and gives a bad impression of an otherwise solid article.

"The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a major impact on France and throughout the rest of Europe"

...could perhaps become:

"The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that profoundly effected the rest of Europe"

...or even:

"The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a major impact on (France and) the rest of Europe"

Questions to consider: -Do we need to restate the effects of the French Revolution on France? Isn't it implied? -How can we structure that phrase to include French as well as non-French effects of the revolution?

Cogito Ergo Sum (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Commas

On the veery first sentence, (The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a major impact on France and throughout the rest of Europe) neeeds commas between radical, social, and political upheaval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecommander15 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not doneThe construction of that sentence is as follows...

The French Revolution [subject] was[intransitive verb, singular form of "be/to be"] a period[noun] of radical [adjective modifying 'social' and 'political'] social [adjective modifying 'upheaval'] and political [adjective modifying 'upheaval'] upheaval[noun].

so the sentence's understanding is

"The French Revolution was a period of upheaval" with the modifiers of "radical social and political" added. No additional commas necessary. Shearonink (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Monaco

I have removed "Monaco" from the infobox, because it is not relevant in connection with this. What happened was that the French forces invaded Monaco in 1793 and deposed the Grimaldis, similar incidents occurred in the Lowlands, Italy and some German states, but there is no need to list all them here, as that is all part of the French Revolutionary Wars, not a part of the French Revolution itself. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2013

Fourth paragraph of the Introduction, eighth line down, please capitalize "h" in "he" at the beginning of the fourth sentence in the paragraph. In the subequent sentence, please add an "e" to "achievemnt" betwen the "m" and "n".

In the "causes" section, first paragraph, twelfth line down, please change "the France" to either "the French" or "France". In the subsequent paragraph, please add "was" or another simple past tense state of being verb between "Versailles" and "isolated".

In the "see also", under the "general" subheading, please add a hyperlink to this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools'_Day 119.57.67.171 (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done by another editor, except for the April Fools. -- Dianna (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Role of women

The article reads: "Women had no political rights in pre-Revolutionary France; they could not vote or hold any political office. They were considered "passive" citizens; forced to rely on men to determine what was best for them in the government. It was the men who defined these categories, and women were forced to accept male domination in the political"

This text insinuates that, after the Revolution, women would have received some political rights. They got nothing. The notion of "passive" citizens is a well-defined revolutionary term, not one from the Ancien Régime. It denoted those who had not enough money to pay a minimum of taxes - peasants and labourers-, those younger than 25, women, servants, and those who were bankrupt. "Passive citizens" could not vote for the revolutionary Assemblée and could not be member of the militia (Garde nationale").
Before the Revolution, (single) women had some voting rights: noble owners of a territory and abesses voted for representatives in the Estates General. After the Revolution, no woman was allowed to vote, Should we not stick to facts, and remove this misleading text, even if it seems to be taken from a "reference"? Riyadi (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's just misleading but otherwise correct, it should be clarified not removed. --Roly (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it is not correct. If we would take away "pre-", the phrase would almost change into its opposite, but it would become correct. Riyadi (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me you are reading something into the paragraph that it actually doesn't say, since it doesn't contain any mention about the political rights of women during the Revolution. It merely explains the background of the political role of women prior to the Revolution. Also if you read the first paragraph of the following section entitled "Feminist agitation" you can see it plainly stated that women were not granted political rights during the revolution. Especially this sentence: "Women were, nonetheless, "denied political rights of ‘active citizenship’ (1791) and democratic citizenship (1793)."[119]". --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

La Fayette or Lafayette

The Marquis de la Fayette is called both La Fayette and Lafayette in the section "Completing the constitution", nowhere else in the article is the latter version used, so maybe change it to La Fayette? Transmogriff (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Done - Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 21:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

some exaggerations

"Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history, and the end of the early modern period, which started around 1500, is traditionally attributed to the onset of the French Revolution in 1789."

No. It had very little impact outside France and the article doesn't indicate otherwise.

"The Revolution represented the most significant and dramatic challenge to political absolutism up to that point in history and spread democratic ideals throughout Europe and ultimately the world."

No. What people took away from the French Revolution was its bloodshed and dictatorship. The spread of democratic ideals was already being done by parliamentary democracy in Britain (a more powerful and influential country) and in particular by the success of the American Republic. 24.44.252.192 (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)captcrisis

Long-winded "result"

The first "result" is more of a "recap." Can it be replaced with the following two points:

• Abolition of the French monarchy
• Purge of the old ruling classes under a radical secular republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:1D:30BE:51B7:3A69:C863 (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Declaration of Rights of Man....

In this article it is said that The Declaration of Rights of Man extended rights to women and slaves when in fact it did not. It strictly included men, similar to the Declaration of Independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.204.57 (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I understand this article is undergoing/listed for GAR. If I may suggest an alteration to the page's writer, it needs much more focus on its wider (international) historical context and immediate legacy. Other revolutions of 1789 - the Brabant Revolution and Liège Revolution to name just two are much more directly relevant legacies of the French revolution itself (as opposed to the later revolutionary rule) than 1848 or the Louisiana Purchase, which are currently named. Brigade Piron (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2013

I find this in the section about the Directory (1795-1799):

"In this way the army and its successful general, Napoleon Bonaparte eventually gained total power."

Please make one of these changes:

If Napoleon Bonaparte was the only successful general in the army at that time, add comma after "Bonaparte".

If there were other successful generals in the army at that time, remove comma after "general".

128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've removed the comma, which definitely didn't belong there on its own. As I read the sentence, it's not terribly relevant whether there were other successful generals; Napoleon was the only one who gained a degree of power that might be called total. Rivertorch (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Help!

I'm sure this article is very good. However, for me, it is just a load of data, of facts, it does not constitute information as I know it. I just wanted to find a "potted" history - a chronology, with key events, facts and people, so that I could then delve deeper at my leisure. Could someone compile one of these at the start of the article (with intra-page links - however you do these)?

Also, I notice on the disambiguation page that there were other French Revolutions. Again, an "idiot's guide" would have been useful, with key dates, facts and people (and a brief brief of how the various revolutions interlink).

Thanks DrWhoFan (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you want a timeline. Whenever research major historical events like this on Wikipedia, try looking for the timeline: Timeline of the French Revolution--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2014

In the section revolution and the church, the phrase firt-day-of-the-week should be changed to: first-day-of-the-week.

thank you

Ben84jazz (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Source error in Hercules section

Hello, I see under the symbols section "The symbol of Hercules was first adopted by the Old Regime to represent the monarchy." The source is listed as Hunt 1984, 89.

However page 89 in Hunt does not make any mention of Hercules, and when Hercules is discussed later in the chapter it is only as a symbol of the people, not the monarchy. Perhaps a different source should be listed here?Jimpudar (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)jim

has the world changed most in past 50 years?

Do any person believe the human race has regressed rather tham progressed in last 50 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.207.132 (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Help from a french native speaker

Hi, I can help to improve this page by translating some part of the French page. But my English is not perfect, so if somebody is motivated to help me with that (or on another article), please answer me ;) Nanaki13(talk) 13:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent expansions of content

I am opposed to the expansions of content in recent weeks and addition of high levels of detail that have now made this summary article far too long: The article has now reached a level of intricate detail that would overwhelm and put off the average reader, who is more often than not little more than a student just doing some research or a casual reader.

According to WP:SUMMARY an article like French Revolution is meant to give an overview of all the events of the revolution (and there were many) in moderate detail, where there exist separate Main Articles going into full detail on specific events of the revolution (such as the Storming of the Bastille or First Republic which itself needs more expansion there). Certain sections in this article are so long they could be separate articles. I hate to point fingers and creep into personal attack territory, but while ongoing gradual expansion has been occurring over time through various users, it is evident in the Revision history that this article has been rapidly bloated in just the past few weeks by one person who added new sections and new levels of detail which I, upon reading, do not feel are fit for this particular article. There is also a journalistic and melodramatic writing style evident which includes excessive use of idiomatic, informal expressions that do not follow Wikipedia's writing style guidelines.

Nivose, I don't doubt your good faith and don't necessarily oppose the content itself, but there are Main article links scattered throughout this summary article, and I think you would be better off relocating such specific detail to those articles. And if you do relocate them, I would also suggest modifying the tone and writing style of the content to sound less like a news article from the era or student essay and more like a neutral, formal encyclopedia. I would like to get other editors' opinions on this so we can quickly get a consensus on whether the article needs to be shortened, which is why I opened an RFC. Thank you. Cadiomals (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I just ran the 'Page size' tool, here are the results:

Document statistics:

File size: 579 kB

Prose size (including all HTML code): 175 kB

References (including all HTML code): 19 kB

Wiki text: 180 kB

Prose size (text only): 121 kB (19723 words) "readable prose size"

References (text only): 1311 B

So, per WP:SIZERULE and keeping in mind readability issues and technical issues, a 121 kB prose size indicates that the article needs to be edited down to a more manageable size. At the moment I am not sure how I would accomplish that - I'll need to take a closer look at the content over the next few days or so. Shearonink (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Shearonink, Cadiomals - I paced main body of the article—from Causes to 18 Brumair—in my sandbox, just to see the size, and size of it was 98,469 bytes, ~ 60% of the size of the current page (184,121 bytes). Also I looked closely at those endless References and there are a lot of doubles including a lot of pointless references to Amazon.com. Sincerely, --Nivose (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point here. I ran the User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js Page size utility tool, the readable prose size of this entire article is 121 kB, WP:SIZERULE states that anything over 100kB is getting too big. The References are not included in this article size tool, per Article size "This page contains an overview of the key issues concerning article size. ...

"Readable-prose size: all viewable text in the main sections only, not including any viewable text in a table or a list, and not including any footer sections"

References are in the footer section and are not included as a component of the readable prose. Re: the References being not as good as they should be, then perhaps the Amazon.com-type references can and should be improved and that section could be pruned but that still has no bearing on the readable prose size of this article. Shearonink (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not questioning your results, just pointing out that actual size of the French Revolution itself without sections "Symbolism in the French Revolution", "Role of women" and "Long-term impact" is up to 60% smaller.Nivose (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Cadiomals, I agree with what you wrote about high level details and keeping size down. But the point is how to achieve it. Lets take my latest input "The Directory". There was one, relatively small section with several opinion statements ending with Napoleon coup. Well, this was about 4 (four!) years of the French Revolution. Almost half of it! And nothing happened? I believe that in writing about it even on high level, there should be flow of events from starting point to the end, showing how the ending point come about. If it is so main events and trends should be mentioned. Economy, Napoleon in Italy, 18 Fructidor, Crisis 1797 and finally 18 Brumair. Moralizing about corrupt directors does not show the whole picture. Let say there is still missing Napoleon in Italy. Why it is important to speak about it? The reason he played his part in 18 Fructidor because in Directorials' defeat he would lose his achievements there. Should we mention that? Or just say, as it was, that successful general came eventually and put the end to the whole thing? The question to me is how to say it, in how many sentences, how many words; but it should be mentioned...
  "...journalistic and melodramatic writing style..." — well, most of it is taken from the sources such as Lefebvre, Soboul, Rude, Furet - so-called "classical" and "revisionist" renown historians on the subject. What you see it is as close as possible from their works. It does not mean that I don't have my own opinion, but at no point I expressed it in the article. I did look in Britannica article, which is written by Soboul and the style is similar, though the article is much much longer. If there are some cases with French and French Revolutionary flavor - it is taken from these authors, and yes article about Revolution should have some "flavor" of the event.
  On the other hand there are some sections, I strongly agree should be moved into separate articles. Sections like "Symbolism", "Role of Women" - as important as it is, it does not belong to the main article and takes 25-30% of it. Also "Economic Policies" section (somehow under Role of women) does not belong to it as it is. There are number of distinct periods in the whole event and each had its own economy distinct from the other and was one of the factors shaping each period. That's why I have economy under Rev. Government, Themidorians and the Directory.
• "...more like a neutral, formal encyclopedia...". About those Main article links - just one example... Just one. In Main article French Directory you might find reference to the Constitution of the Year I by clicking on which you reach the actual article of the Constitution of the Year I, which in turn has an image of the Constitution and by looking at it you might see "l'an deuxieme" meaning that "Constitution of the Year I" in reality is "Constitution of the Year II". Well, so much for "encyclopedia" style! And as it was said that "...student just doing some research or a casual reader..." just made two clicks to go through 3 articles to receive false or inaccurate information. False which is repeating in chain is not honest mistake - it is something else. I wonder what those people had in mind creating articles without basic knowledge on the subject? It is not even from "a news article from the era or student essay". Just one example... --Nivose (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article is too long and detailed. Mostly the sections on symbolism and on women are currently over represented. Also most other sections are quite larger then they need to be. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw the RfC and came to look at the article and discuss it. I agree it's simply too long. I'm using a tablet and the article is actually quite slow to load, so that's one indication that it's too long. When it's as long as this, it also makes it very difficult to edit. It will take some work to reduce the size and move some of the content into "child" articles. But hyperlinks are preferable to endless scrolling. I suggest taking a look at the outline and deciding what can be moved into "child" articles. OttawaAC (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Move "Role of women" section into a new child article

The level of detail in this section makes it a poor fit for a survey article on a huge history topic like this. I want to move it into a standalone article (title: Women in the French Revolution). OttawaAC (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree on that. Some of the text is just waste of space. For example, relatively big "Counter-revolutionary women" section. What is it about? There is not a single name of a "counter-revolutionary woman". If you change every mention of "women" to "men" or "people", meaning of the section does not change at all. Relationship to religion was common in the mass of population, not just women.Nivose (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Move "Symbolism" section into new child article

My rationale for this section is the same as for the section on the role of women. I want to move it into a standalone article. OttawaAC (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree - all these huge depictions on Hercules and other... when there is question to exclude some "high" level details, actual events of the revolution to Main-child pages.Nivose (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Montagnards

Hi there, we are looking to expand upon the Montagnard section of this page by linking to its child page more directly. On the Montagnard child page we would like to include information on their policies, history of conflict with Girondins, and overall philosophies. Is this something that would make a good addition? Vendemiaire (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for new subsection: De-Christianization during the terror

We recommend that a section be created labeled “De-Christiaization and iconoclastic tendencies during the Terror”. It has come to our attention that a number of important events and anti-theological dispositions during the terror have been fundamentally excluded from the present page. We thus would welcome a chance to offer three points of analysis that we believe will contribute to the already informative page you oversee. These points are 1) A more precise description of the transformation of Notre Dame into the Temple of Reason, 2) The removal of fine art with depictions of the former monarchy as divine, as carried out by Revolutionary activist groups during the Terror, and 3) Ritual burnings of religious volumes, and their replacement with enlightenment texts in public thought and discourse.

Hercules1794 (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Hercules1794Hercules1794 (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

the current article is already too long. You need to summarize Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution in three sentences & add a link here. You can also expand that other article. Rjensen (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Connect Link from Haitian Revolution to French Revolution Page

We want expand upon the influence of Enlightenment thought present during the French Revolution and how these ideas may have impacted the slave revolt in Saint Domingue. Specifically, we hope to further explain and explore which aspects of Enlightenment thought were present in motivations underpinning the slave rebellion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dufrenchrev (talk • contribs) 15:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Move "Long-term impact" into standalone article

This is another long, detailed section that doesn't fit in a survey article. Wikipedia has a lot of other articles called "Impact of...", so I want to leave the first couple paragraphs of this section here, and move the rest of the section to a new standalone article, "Impact of the French Revolution". OttawaAC (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend spinning off the sections on symbolism, women, and the long-term results on other countries (however KEEP the long-term impact on France). And in each case there should be a short summary that remains in this article. The section on the Directory is too long and should be trimmed – all the main reliable sources give proportionately much less attention to those Directory years. Rjensen (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• About section on the Directory I strongly disagree. Have you read Main article on The Directory? It is poor written in my view and just wrong! The word "royalist" used only once in whole article: "...Although Royalists formed but a petty fraction of the majority, they accused that fraction of seeking to restore monarchy and to undo the work of the Revolution..." when the whole period (4 years!!! almost half of the revolution) was about struggle against restoration... against who? Right, against royalism. The reader should get the sense of what was going on after fall of Robespierre. The whole period was pointed at prevention of dictatorship of any kind (read Thermidorian Regime about it in this article). So it should be shown (not by some statements or declarations but by flow of actual events) how they could not achieve it and came to the very dictatorship themselves, first directorial dictatorship and only then Napoleon's. Otherwise one cannot make sense where the whole Napoleon period came from. It is not just trimmed. More should be mentioned, such as change of the "defense of the Patrie" to conquest. Rise of the role of the Army where actually Napoleon came from; and army change from "citizen" to relatively separate body. Four paragraphs in each The Directory sections is not a lot, though it could be trimmed, if it is possible. BTW it takes 19,132 bytes — a little more than 10% of the whole article and "all the main reliable sources give proportionately much less attention to those Directory years" is overstatement if not wrong Nivose (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. Nothing to say that long quote from Aulard "From the social point of view, the Revolution consisted..." is cited twice — at the beginning and under France sub-section. Also overblown stress on "nationalism" again and again. "Nationalism" in 1792 has quite different meaning than contemporary one. It is misleading and require explanation, which brings more waste of space. Rise of "National state" is more appropriate. Anyway, some statements are just wrong. For example — "...large scale industry was less common than in other industrializing nations.[220]..." under "Long-term impact/economics". There was no "industrializing nations" (plural) at the time of Fr. Rev. Even England hardly can be called an industrialized nation at the end of XVIII century. It is just the beginning of the "Industrial Revolution". And it plays badly on Alfred Cobban because reference attributed to him - [220]. Long-term impact on France is already stated in preamble of the article and in this section it does not add anything new, but takes real-estate of the article.Nivose (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Also there is "Revolution and the Church" subsection under "National Constituent Assembly (1789–1791)" which is generic overview and does not belong to the main overview of events. Surely it should be mentioned, but not in such generic way ending with Napoleonic period which is outside of the article scope. Economy section can be removed completely. One cannot combine in an single overview different types of economics in one small overview and not go in distinct detail to every different period. And again it ends with Napoleon's period which is outside of this article. Nivose (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for showing your concerns and agreement that this article needs to be shortened. However I remain most urgently concerned about the First Republic section, which was greatly expanded in recent weeks and is still extremely long compared to the rest of the article, having many unnecessary subsections and sub-subsections. The Constitutional Monarchy section is also very long. Please find ways to condense details or remove unnecessary ones or I will have a look myself in the coming days. Cadiomals (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Cadiomals Well, there is easier way to solve a "problem" — just roll back the changes to its original state on 30 March 2014. Nivose (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I was aware of that option but of course I wanted to be respectful of your concerns first and did not want to potentially anger you by rolling back all your changes without your agreement. You would actually be unopposed to that? There were a few changes made by others since 30 March but I could restore them afterwards. Also, while the details might be removed from this summary article you could still relocate them to related articles with a narrower focus. Cadiomals (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Cadiomals I have no problem with rolling it back at all. You can have any kind of history you want. What you have in First Republic and down is "standard" or even "classical" presentation of the history. For a moment I thought that this article was about French Revolution... Staying in the boundaries of the French Revolution, I can paraphrase Robespierre: "Citizen! Do you want history of the French Revolution without history of the French Revolution?".
  Yes, you can roll it back!
  
  Just to compare sizes:
  WWI - 230,014 bytes
  WWII - 218,990 bytes
  Winston Churchill - 180,485 bytes
  Vladimir Putin - 192,273 bytes
  Nivose (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  

To get back to my suggested changes, regardless of any rollback or truncating of other sections, I still think that the sections on the role of women, symbolism, and long-term impact need to be moved. I don't think the Directory section is the only flaw in this meandering article. OttawaAC (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• OttawaAC Each paragraph in The Directory section has a reference. You can open each source and find content of it word in word. Authors - are the best in the field, chairs of the French Revolution History in Sorbonne. We might not like the content, but please don't call it flaw...Nivose (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I never questioned the veracity of the sources. I'm critical of the extensive detail in this article. As I've said, this article is too long for a summary. Yes, there are other long(er) articles on Wikipedia...they should also be truncated. I recently had to use a chainsaw to cut away chunks of a different summary article; I gleaned enough prose for several child articles. It happens. So i will repeat what I said earlier: hyperlinks are a better navigation tool than scrolling. OttawaAC (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

OttawaAC It is just generic way of talking... Have you looked at French article? There you really find extensive details (209 182 bytes)! And without "Symbols" and other stuff... Nothing to say there are no articles you can move those details, unless you consider main articles such as "Thermidorian Reaction" a good article. I wonder why there is talk about size only and nothing about content... Also in WP:SIZERULE you can find "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage." Anyway, you can do whatever you want...Nivose (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• OttawaAC meandering article - my favorite section in the article is Constitutional crisis. In real history when it comes to 10 August, it usually called "Fall of the monarchy" or "Second revolution". But the very event is just something... word insurrection is not there, some insurgents and popular militias assailed the Tuileries Palace and massacred the Swiss Guards... in the thick of the night of 9 August... Well, assault was on 10 and in broad day light...In real history they have name - federes and National Guard of the Paris sections... and so on through the whole section. It is just a beauty and nobody notice that! Well, this article deserves this kind of history...Nivose (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• OttawaAC meandering article - here how it is done: right away after rollback, "specialist" in Derictory Rjensen added meaningless 554 bytes of "commentary" to French Revolutionary Wars with "...the brother of executed King Louis XVI becoming King Louis XVII"... Not enough that the whole commentary is not necessary, but Louis XVII... died in 1795 at age of 10... and brother of Louis XVI became Louis XVIII. Well, according to Rjensen input, I don't believe it is a typo. Good work and very smart! Nivose (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• OttawaAC, though I was immediately concerned with the most recent expansions of content, I agree that certain sections such as the one focusing solely on female contributions and "long-term impact" on various countries seems to be undue weight and the info needs to be condensed and/or relocated. Nivose, I agree that size is definitely not the only concern of an article, an appropriate balance of content and appropriate weight given to various subtopics needs to be found also and I hope such a balance is eventually reached. I would support continued efforts to relocate/balance content though I am not a devoted follower of this article. Cadiomals (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

On article size -- there is a point where we lost readers rapidly and I think it's been reached. The information can easily go into the spinoff articles where people interested in specialized subtopics (women, symbols) should be headed. As for the Directory, all the RS consider those 4 years MUCH less important than the 1789-93 period-- it is simply false to assume that all years are of equal historical importance--just like saying all kings are of equal importance. Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Rjensen In Lefebvre's 2 Volume The French Revolution Directory — 260 pages out of 780
  In Soboul's The French Revolution it is 190 pages out of 640
  Aulard's History - the whole Volume IV (out of four - 25%) and part of Volume III Nivose (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I see much lower % on Directory. Half of Lafebvre's material is on warfare & other countries, Soboul gives only 107pp (pp 451-548) on 1795-99, not 190. American and British historians give it far less attention In Bosher, French Revolution 17pp out of 300; Thompson, French Rev zero (ends in 1794); Gershoy "Fr Rev & Napoleon 30 pages out of 530; Sutherland, French Rev 35pp out of 400; Doyle, Oxford Hist of Fr Rev 23pp out of 420. Newer French studies: Furet, Rev Fr 60pp out of 265. Rjensen (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Right, and Aulard's translator used too many words. This is great idea to create article on "French Revolution (american version)" and it will be much much shorter... Or end it on 8 Thermidor - nobody gets hurt with a note "Next 5 years unimportant" ... wait, this is actually what you had before this outrageous The Directory nonsense sneaked in the articleNivose (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I like Aulard and I'm the one who quoted him. This is the Wikipedia for the English speaking world and the scholars I cited are mostly British. The problem with the French is that until very recently the Revolution was a defining political moment that shaped and determined academic orthodoxy and careers. That is they were too deeply emeshed in it to reflect a balanced view. (You get this in most national historiographies). The advantage of English Wikipedia is that we can step back. The Directory years I suggest are important for foreign & military policy, which this article does a poor job of covering. For example: there are no wars! -- we have one sentence in the Long-Term section ("Britain led and funded the series of coalitions that fought France from 1793 to 1815, and then restored the Bourbons.") All historians will bemoan Wiki's failure in that regard. Rjensen (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Rjensen "All historians will bemoan..." on this statement from my favorite (as I mentioned already above) section Constitutional crisis — "The Commune sent gangs of National Guardsmen and fereres into the prisons to kill 10 or more victims"
  1. Grammar — "fédérés" not fereres
  2. The Commune did not send 'em
  3. The Commune did not know what was going on during the first day of the massacres.
  4. The Commune sent its representatives the next day with instructions to stop it and they were ignored.
  5. Assembly, Girondins, Jacobins, Danton as a lead of executive kept silence on the matter while it was going on
  By keeping this false account in the article while it looks you have all necessary RS makes one wonder. By lack of any response on all specific examples I brought in this discussion brings it to another level — that honest mistakes out of ignorance or good faith are actual lies with a goal to purposely misinform the reader under empty declarations of "The advantage of English Wikipedia is that we can step back" Nivose (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If you think a particular statement is wrong please repair it & add a cite. Just don't complain that no one else has fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You did not render your opinion again! I am surprised. You have opinion on whole period, but about that you don't. At least you have looked at number of pages in RS. Good luck! Nivose (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

one of the liabilities when an article is too long (like this one) is that it is increasingly difficult to scan it for errors or poorly phrased statements. But when I spot a problem I try to fix it. Rjensen (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

End of the Monarchy/Constitutional crisis section is not some trivial mistake. It did not appear there yesterday - it was there for some years. You tell me that you never read it? Interesting...Nivose (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I moved the other countries to a new article Influence of the French Revolution (and added new info to the new article), keeping the long-term impact on France in both place. Ialso created a new article on Symbolism in the French Revolution and trimmed the version here. Rjensen (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV: C21st views of Muslim religious symbols in schools

I am concerned about the section below.

Battles over religion, and closely related issues such as church-controlled schools, raged into the 20th century. By the 21st century angry debates exploded over the presence of any Muslim religious symbols in schools, such as the headscarves for which Muslim girls could be expelled.^ref

It seems to suggest a huge issue. I know that there was a big enough debate on veil bans at one point that there were English headlines, but the tone seems overly alarmist here. What is known about the source (Abdulkader H. Sinno (2009). Muslims in Western Politics. Indiana UP. pp. 55–56.) and is it reliable? Furthermore, is it remotely relevant to the French Revolution? Disclaimer: I've never been to France and am unknowledgeable about the issue.

I have, and I can say you are correct in your presumption. It's like saying that "[In the USA,]battles over gender issues, and closely related issues such as LGBT rights, raged into the late 20th century. By the 21st century angry debates exploded over the presence of [women in the military and the repel of DADT].", in the American Revolution article. I suppose the editor who wrote that wanted to have a less anemic prose, but the result is just hyperbolic. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Sinno book is a leading academic account published by a leading scholarly press and with good reviews in the scholarly journals. Sinno explicitly connects the French Rev to the issues of today. That is exactly the RS that Wiki favors. There is no POV -- POV means the article omits a major alternative scholarly view to the effect that there is no problem in France on Muslim religious symbols. (No scholar says that) Many scholars have cited Sinno as shown in this Google search. The point is the French Rev continues to be fiercely debated as it applies to the issue of religion in the public sphere. The Revolution is not yet over, only now it is a new group (Muslims) rather than an old one (Catholics) fighting it. Every few years there are major riots on the matter. Rjensen (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There has never been riots over the school veil. But I agree that there is a strong relation between the French Rev and the modern laicity debate. ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

moving text to the Directory article

I have copied much of the text from "French Rev." dated 14 April 2014 and written by user:Nivose to French Directory, where I hope people will read it. Rjensen (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)