Talk:Estates General of 1789/Archive 1

Unattributed copying?
This text has much in common with that on http://www.france.com/culture/display_item.cfm?id=154 The latter includes some details missing from the current wikipedia article, but it's not clear which is the original. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.187.67 (talk • contribs) 19 July 2006.
 * Their site explicitly acknowledges that they copied from us under GFDL; it looks like there are some minor compliance issues (they link back to our site for the text of the license instead of reproducing it themselves) but nothing major. - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A whole bunch of books
If you are going to make a change and say it reflects "a whole bunch of books", would it be so hard to cite one? - Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.assumption.edu/dept/history/Hi118net/ChronologyFrenchRev.html gives 27 Dec 1788 as the date of the "doubling of the Third Estate". I'm not finding a lot else on line, once I weed out copies of our own article. Since the change matches the French-language Wikipedia, I'll presume it is correct, but a good citation would be very welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Estates-General convenes
This section does not read well, and there is a "word" (?) sinar which is neither French nor English. Perhaps it is meant to be "since", but the sentence still would not make sense. I have removed some stray letters which interrupted the text. --Melba1 (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It made no sense because two previous revisions by 129.171.150.71 (talk) were vandalism.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem on link
I temprarily removed this link, even though a good one.


 * http://en.chateauversailles.fr/history/the-great-days/most-important-dates/1789-opening-of-the-etats-generaux-states-general

The legal page of the site states "The site's users and visitors cannot create a hyperlink to this site without the site operator's express prior consent." Whether that is true I do not know. If it is, someone might ask them.Branigan 09:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Enhancement of 1st specific section
I'm going to rework this a little adding some material. It appears to have been taken primarity from EB. First, it is a bit on the sparse side. We have no idea what "doubling the third" might mean. Second, there is only one weak and non-encyclopedic ref on the whole thing. But, the discussion specifically calls for more refs. Third, some of that material represents the opinions of the EB author, which he could well present in EB, but need refs here. For example, the king is stated to have "misjudged." There was no misjudgement. The whole issue had been before the public the entire previous autumn. The king was attempting to keep the whole thing under control, but he found he had to retreat step by step, which he expected. He agreed to everything they were doing but the whole time he did have a Plan B, which was to cut and run. Unfortunately for him it was foiled. While one does appreciate the encyclopedic opinion it seems to me WP needs less of it. We're doing something different.Branigan 15:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

New Cite Requests
Well, here I am trying to type, and some new cite requests cause me to lose eveything I just typed. Well, I judge your intent was good. Those things you cited need to be addressed. I should have broken out the old area from the part I was trying to type. I need to take a brief break. That will give you a chance to mark whatever it is you are going to mark. Then I will break out the previous section and continue. For the citation, yes, those needed to be cited. I am going to replace some of it and cite some of it. All in good time. Ciao.Branigan 16:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Response to new tags
Hi. I see that your critiques are genuine and I appreciate that and appreciate them. To get the right words in such abbreviated material is important. Here is my approach. I can't really clarify some of this material without going off into tangents or expanding the article more than I wanted to expand it. So, my first reaction is to delete words or concepts that you find uncertain or confusing. If you really want something expanded please persist and we will work it through. I'm a slow writer on these topics, I have to warn you. But then, the article has been sitting around for some time.Branigan 12:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What other media were there
Well, perhaps the most important media were the pamphlets. Then there were the speeches by corner or club-room orators. There were also discussion groups in the clubs. These are no less "media." Not to mention the pulpit. The "press" in the modern sense didn't exist. The original sense of press prevailed, as the papers were "pressed" out. However, this is an article about the Estates-General, not about the media of the times. So, if you want to change media to press, I am not going to contend. The article had a request for more serious references. So, I am giving us something to reference. There were no references because the article was not saying anything. I'm not through with it yet. However, the precise details are not so important as getting SOME details in. Be my guest, or do it on your own, whichever you prefer.Branigan 18:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding a section
The last part of course still needs referencing and explanations. However, the first section is still overly condense, I think. It needs a section even before then on the decision to hold Estates General. This will after all move briefly into 1787 and 1788 but it will explain the issue that troubled the estates. Also there is a bit of a surprise, as we find the marquis de Lafayette there, with whom we are familiar from American history, and, the American Revolution had more to do with it than we thought. Also I think it is time we got introduced to Carlyle.Branigan 12:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)