Talk:Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution

Fair use rationale for Image:Simon Schama, Citizens, cover.jpg
Image:Simon Schama, Citizens, cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

More links to crtical responses to 'Citizens' are needed here
My reading of "Citizens" was that Schama's work is very much a Francis Fukuyama-style Reagan-era, Thatcher-era take on the French Revolution and there should be more critical response to this.

Suffice it to say it was a mass slaughter, with a grim lithurgy and that led to more tragical consequences. A disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.62.178.67 (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Miasnikov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miasnikov (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite needed/Planning one
I find this review rather one dimensional and shallow. It seems that Schama makes at least 3 points in this Work. I plan balancing this article with the inclusion of points 2 & 3. I also plan to produce a brief outline, and add a few critiques of the work: both positive and negative. If any have an interest in this article, now, while I am conducting my research is the time to make your viewpoints known.
 * 1) As is mentioned, in the present article: violence was the motor of the revolution.
 * 2) The revolution, at least the portion that existed during Jacobin rule, was reactionary.
 * 3) The revolution accomplished nothing. Any change that occurred would have occurred anyway and was already in progress.

MarkSonntag (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)