User talk:Wordyhs

Your edits to French revolution

Hello there

I undid your edits because they were unsourced original research. WP:OR. Editors aren't supposed to write their own interpretations of the subject but to summarise the views of authors as presented in reliable sources. Only one of your statements had a source and that source appeared to be a self-published essay. That doesn't count as a reliable source. WP:RELIABLE. You made a bold edit and I reverted it. Now it is up to you to go to the Talk page and to try to seek consensus for your changes. WP:BRD Thanks you. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

It may be a bold edit, but you have not said what exactly you do not agree with.

There is more than one source:

R. Palmer's The Age of the Democratic Revolution is a source.

Michel-Rolph Trouillot's Silencing the Past: Power and Production of History is another source.

For Marxists, Mathiez, Lefebvre, Soboul are well known.

For French republican nationalism, I didn't mentioned it, but Furet, Interpreting the French Revolution, is a source I can add, for exemple:

“Mother of the political culture into which all of us are born, the Revolution allows everyone to look for filiations. But all those histories, which have bitterly fought each other for the last two hundred years in the name of the origins of their opposition, in fact share a common ground: they are all histories in quest of identity. No Frenchman living in the second half of the twentieth century can perceive the French Revolution from the outside. One cannot practise ethnology in so familiar a landscape. The event is so fundamentally, so tyrannically rooted in contemporary French political consciousness that any attempt to consider it from an intellectual ‘distance’ is immediately seen as hostility — as if identification, be it a claim to descent or rejection, were inevitable.” (p. 10)

But, this is well knew.

So, I can’t understand why you said there is only one source. Wordyhs (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I have responded on the Talk page of the article. Cheers. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Wikipedia are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. If you want to ask about Eurocentrism on Wikipedia then do so, but don't use it as an excuse for a long unrelated discussion Meters (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding duplicate content, violating WP:WEIGHT in WP:LEDE

The content you recently added to the lede is already in the "Reception" section; it does not belong in the lede per WP:WEIGHT. Please don't re-add it there unless there is a talk page consensus to do so. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC) December 2023 Bethlehem Free State,I think the work of the light is the work of the Moon 🌒, Couse it can rise in the day and night the Sun ☀️ only rise in the day only — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.31.233 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]