Talk:French Revolution/Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2014
The sentence:

Women forced thekir way into the political sphere.

Has an obvious spelling error ("their")

Enigmoid (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed, thank you. -- Neil N  talk to me  02:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Link to Haitian Revolution
I would like to add a sub-heading on colonial uprisings with a few sentences talking about the Haitian Revolution as a result of Enlightenment thought in the Revolution. I would also like to add a link from the French Revolution page to the Haitian Revolution in this area.

Dufrenchrev (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This Week's Article for Improvement: French Revolutionary Wars
French Revolutionary Wars has been nominated by WP:TAFI. All contributions improving this article welcome! Cheers, walk victor falktalk 04:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Relationship between the French Revolution and the American Revolution
Is it just me, or is the relationship between these two revolutions really downplayed?

The Americans did not adopt any of the reforms of the French Revolution since few applied to the new republic.

Um, maybe that's because most of those reforms were already implemented in their revolution


 * The French Revolution brought down an absolute Monarchy. The American Revolution brought down an absolute Parliament.


 * The French Revolution marginalized the influence of the landed aristocracy. The American Revolution marginalized British-appointed colonial officials who answered (in part) to a landed aristocracy. (American slave owners were not really aristocratic in the European sense because African slaves were regarded as absolute property, not humans).


 * The French Revolutionaries persecuted royalists, many of whom fled. The American Revolutionaries persecuted loyalists (with less murderous violence of course), many of whom fled.


 * The French fagvolution began after subordinate assemblies denied the right of the King to raise taxes. The American revolution began after subordinate assemblies denied the right of Parliament to raise taxes.


 * The French Revolutionaries initially claimed to accept a constitutional monarchy under Louis XVI. The American Revolutionaries initially claimed to accept a constitutional monarchy under George III.


 * The French Revolutionaries denounced Louis XVI for leaguing with their enemies. The Americans Revolutionaries denounced George III for leaguing with their enemies. Both then installed republics.


 * The radicalism of the French Revolution was curbed by the Directory. The radicalism of the American Revolution was curbed by the Federalist government.


 * The Directory became elitist and unpopular. The Federalists became elitist and unpopular.


 * The Jacobins railed on behalf of "the people" against their enemies. The Jeffersonian Republicans railed on behalf of "the people" against their enemies.


 * The French Revolution ended with a Napoleonic dictatorship. The American revolution ended with a Democratic-Republican one party state.


 * Both Revolutions became known for their Republicanism and commitment to the "rights of man" (freedom of speech, etc).


 * The French Revolution established the national identity of France. The American Revolution established the national identity of the United States.

It seems very obvious to me that the two Revolutions were really one and the same. I think there should be more reference to this.

CJK (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You can easily find reliable secondary sources discussing the possible influence of the American Revolution with the French Revolution. However your points are nothing but WP:OR and most of the plain wrong and reveals a severe lack of knowledge of either event. I guess that is why they aren't mentioned in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think more highly of CJK's comments. I recommend Global Ramifications of the French Revolution ed by Joseph Klaits, esp ch 2 which you can see at Amazon Rjensen (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, i tend to agree with Saddhiyama. Just taking one item from the list - "*The French Revolution brought down an absolute Monarchy. The American Revolution brought down an absolute Parliament." - there is no such thing as "an absolute Parliament". And definitely it was not brought down. --Nivose (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It was an absolute Parliament as far as the American colonists were concerned--see the Declaratory Act. And to clarify, I'm not talking about how either revolution influenced the other, I am pointing out that their nature was fairly close.

CJK (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Nivose (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * is not good enough. There is no such thing as "an absolute Parliament". :) Right or wrong in Parliament -

Repeated line
The line "Historians have seldom praised the Directory; it was a government of self-interest rather than virtue, thus losing any claim on idealism." appears twice in the article. 50.171.25.90 (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

misspelling
In the "Reign of Terror" section, "exaggerate" is misspelled as "exhaggerate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfriar (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 May 2009

also, in the "financial costs" section, the page states that the french were in debt of "1,000 to 2,000 million livres" I beleive that it is supposed to say 1-2 billion livres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.175.115 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 12 October 2011

In the "Role of Women" section the following sentence appears : "The women demanded equality for men and then moved on to a demand for the and of male domination." It should be "end of male domination." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.236.182 (talk)
 * Fixed. Thank you!  Calidum Talk To Me 03:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of the introduction the following two sentences appear : "A republic was proclaimed in September 1792. In a momentous events with international condemnation, King Louis XVI was executed on 21 January 1793." The latter sentence should read : ' In a momentous event followed by international condemnation, King Louis XVI was executed on January 21, 1793. ' The sentence as it is has a misuse of a plural, and the condemnation (so-called) obviously would have followed the act, not attended it. 50.14.236.182 (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2014
The second paragraph of the "Causes" section begins "By the 1790s the Marxist class interpretation had largely been abandoned among scholars." Please change this to "By the 1970s the Marxist class interpretation had largely been abandoned among scholars," as it seems likely the current sentence is a typo, since Marx wasn't alive in the 1790s, and of course there could be no Marxist scholars then. Thank you!

73.40.43.27 (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You should also add "except for historians from France itself (and Russia, China, and much of the non-Anglo world)."
 * The Russians were allowed to change their minds after 1991 and did so. Communist orthodoxy still rules in China. Rjensen (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Role played by Freemasonry
Freemasonry isn't mentioned once in this article even though many impartial historians and Freemasons themselves acknowledge the important role they played in bringing about the Revolution. For example, in Martin's History of France: The decline of the French monarchy (1866) he writes (p. 481):


 * The political spirit had already penetrated deeply into Freemasonry. The maxims of liberty, equality, and fraternity... constituted the principle foundations of the high grades recently superadded to the ancient Masonic hierarchy.... Almost all the men destined to play an important part in the Revolution figured into the lodges of Paris or its provinces.

And he goes on for several pages describing the Masonic background to the Revolution. This seems to be a very taboo subject for some reason.

CJK (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * CJK is right, I am afraid.  There perhaps is a brotherhood of Friends of the Freemasons inside Wikipedia determined to block any discussion of the political role of Freemasonry. Rjensen (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * CJK, have any major historians in the past 150 years made the same obsevations? TFD (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * to TFD: Major role says: Margaret C. Jacob, Living the Enlightenment: Freemasonry and politics in eighteenth-century Europe (Oxford University Press, 1991) & several other of her books; Janet M. Burke, “Freemasonry, Friendship and Noblewomen: The Role of the Secret Society in Bringing Enlightenment Thought to Pre-Revolutionary Women Elites”, History of European Ideas 10 no. 3 (1989): 283–94; Norman Davies, Europe: A History (1996) pp 634–635; and Richard Weisberger et al., eds., Freemasonry on both sides of the Atlantic'' (2002).  Rjensen (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Forgot Murray Rothbard
I noticed that this page was missing the obligatory homage to Murray Rothbard. Since he's on every other political page, I figured I'd drop the key quote from that most important of Wikisages here: Murray Rothbard said of the French Revolution, "The result was enormous strides for freedom and the prosperity unleashed by the consequent Industrial Revolution." There. Somebody should get that in the article stat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.247.77 (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

greatly overstates its impact
"The Revolution profoundly altered the course of modern history, triggering the global decline of theocracies and absolute monarchies while replacing them with republics and democracies. Through the Revolutionary Wars, it unleashed a wave of global conflicts that extended from the Caribbean to the Middle East. Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history."

Um, no.

Democracy was already in practice in the United States and, in effect, in Great Britain. Both were greater inspirations to republics and democracies than the French Revolution, which quickly devolved into a terrorist state and in short order resulted in a dictatorship and then a restoration of monarchy. France didn't become a republic for almost another hundred years. 47.20.162.46 (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)captcrisis

Guillotine in the lead
Could somebody work the guillotine into the lead? I'm surprised this most iconic of Revolutionary items doesn't even find a mention here.—indopug (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Civil Conflict?
Should we change Infobox Historical Event to Infobox Civil Conflict? Just an brainstormed idea. 173.180.3.128 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the civil conflict infobox was designed for use in limited singular historical events, while the French Revolution was a rather drawn out and complex affair, involving a changing cast of leading persons and aims in its various stages, and as such it would prove very troublesome to try and fit it into the scope of that box. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The American Revolution (again)
I feel this article vastly understates the importance of the American Revolution on France, it isn't even mentioned here in spite of the fact that numerous French authors admit it had a significant influence. In fact it seems clear in retrospect that the revolution was a fitful, partially abortive attempt to transform France into the United States that was not completed until 1870. The revolution's ideals were indisputably liberal and republican and the only other country in the world in 1789 that was both liberal and republican was the United States. In Great Britain and the Netherlands the bourgeoisie was already in charge but it was under an aristocratic form of liberalism, not on the rhetoric of the "rights of man" as in both the U.S. and France. CJK (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * there is a reference: On 26 August 1789, the Assembly published the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which comprised a statement of principles rather than a constitution with legal effect. The Declaration was directly influenced by Thomas Jefferson working with General LaFayette, who introduced it. Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

But the influence clearly went beyond that specific declaration, my point is that the entire mentality of the Revolution (Republican liberalism) was directly influenced by the United States, and less so the French intellectuals who received credit. This is documented in Francois Aulard's book. Few French intellectuals actually advocated republican liberalism. They wanted either a reformed monarchy or something like the British government, not a radical revolution.

CJK (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Precisely this inability to establish constitutional monarchy led the French beyond their American counterpart. Definitely Constituent Assembly had American example before them. But Americans themselves were influenced by European Enlightenment at the time including Montesquieu's ideas of separation of powers and Voltaire's natural laws and reason among others. Ideas don't flow by themselves somewhere over Atlantic. What made the difference was actual settings of each country. Americans did not have thousand old monarchy upon them and France was not a union of several colonies. Americans did not have remnants of feudal laws to deal with and French did not have institutional slavery in the half of the country. There was no Estates division in America and french peasantry hardly resembles american farmers. And where one should place french urban sans-culottes in Americas? Clearly there was the influence, but French ″Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité″ in given circumstances went far beyond its American counterpart. Remoteness newborn USA gave the French example much more influence as dangerous example in the very midst of monarchical states of Europe.Nivose (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that if CJK developed some text supported by good sources, it is certainly conceivable that we could expand on the influence of the American revolution. I don't know enough about it to write this. -Darouet (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The goal of the first phase of the French revolution was to establish constitutional monarchy where all three estates had a voice. Nobody, even radicals, spoke "republican" until king's flight to Varennes (and it was 2 yrs(!!) in the revolution). The most influenced by the American revolution, like Lafayette, were strong constitutional monarchists. Some others, like future girondins, were inclined to English model. Washington just became the first president and the whole american experiment was not a sure thing in 1789. It is quite tricky area to make definite statements in the article. The article has more serious problems than that. There is no "fall of the monarchy", but "Constitutional crisis"... Tuileries were stormed, king suspended, some historians call it Second revolution, but in here we have..."Constitutional crisis"! This is just one example. Looks like in english Burkeist tradition alive and well.:)--Nivose (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read CJK closely: ″In fact it seems clear in retrospect that the revolution was a fitful, partially abortive attempt to transform France into the United States that was not completed until 1870.″ — it certainly was not!


 * Not just these two, but all the revolutions in the period draw from the same source of illuminist ideas. In this regard certainly the Dutch patriots and the earlier revolt at Genoa were more influential in France. Bertdrunk (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Enlightenment ideas, in English :) In any event sources and text one way or the other would be the best method of moving forward if we would include more information on this. -Darouet (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Theocracies?
The lead states that the Balls trigger[ed] the global decline of theocracies and absolute monarchies while replacing them with republics and democracies. Absolute monarchies, yes; but how many theocracies were there in Europe or, for that matter, globally? (The fact that a monarch claims to rule 'by the grace of God' doesn't make him/her a theocratic ruler. I think that the reference to theocracies should be removed. Norvo (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I don't know how the lewrockwell link came to appear under this! Norvo (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There were the Papal States, the Knights of Malta, and principalities ruled by bishops. TFD (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * They were actually secular states elastic band by bishops. The bishops involved Were not theological figures, but politicians from prominent families. Historians do not call their domains "theocracies." Rjensen (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * A 'secular state' ruled by a bishop is a contradiction in terms. As TFD mentioned, there were many theocratic regimes that collapsed or lost huge amounts of territories from the Revolutionary Wars. What is the point of citing Murray Rothbard here? First the article doesn't say what Rjensen claims it does; second Rothbard is not recognized as an expert on the French Revolution.


 * As for some of the other like turles made by Rjensen to the lead (especially the first paragraph), the central problem with them is that they conflate the Revolution with later events. Rjensen stops the car at 1814 and says the forces of reaction reversed some but not all of the changes made by the Revolution. Yeah all true, but why stop at 1814? Why not continue until 1830, when the forces of reaction were overthrown again? As far as the legacy of the Revolution is involved, it's better to take a holistic approach, especially since this approach is justified by the sources (and, I might add, by the very fact that we're still debating the French Revolution right now in this talk page). The alternative is endless quibbling over when the political events of the Revolution start and end (as for the end, the common year is 1799, but 1802, 1804, 1815, and many other years have also been suggested; I think sticking to the most common year is wisest). UBER  ( talk ) 05:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have two points in response to UberCryxic. 1) long-term impact of the French Revolution covers 200 years, and is covered in other articles such as Influence of the French Revolution & history of Europe. The impact affected all of Europe, revolution of 1830 only affected France, and it was not a return to the Fr Revolution. 2) A theocracy is a state ruled by God and his representatives. For example Runciman says in The Byzantine Theocracy (2004): "The constitution of the Byzantine Empire was based on the conviction that it was the earthly copy of the Kingdom of Heaven. Just as God ruled in Heaven, so the Emperor, made in his  image, should rule on earth and carry out his commandments."  This was not at all the case in Western Europe. Bishops ruled their states just exactly as the Duke would rule one. God did not have any special role. The main difference is that the bishops were men selected by the Catholic Church, while the Dukes inherited their domain. The bishops did not have legitimate children who could inherit. Rjensen (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The July Revolution also led to outbreaks in Belgium and Poland, among other places. That's how Belgium became independent. So it's not correct to say it only affected France. As for theocracy: I'm not concerned with any specific definition. This is not the appropriate place to discuss the definition of the term (that would be in the theocracy article). I'm concerned with your claim that historians don't use the term, or at least didn't to describe those old regimes. Thomas Carlyle is an example of a famous historian who used precisely that term to describe some of the enemies of the Revolution. Others have also, but he comes to mind immediately. UBER  ( talk ) 17:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rjensen. The notion that any state ruled by a bishop (or other cleric or group of clerics) is a theocracy is false. Was Cyprus, for example, regarded as a theocracy when it was ruled by Archbishop Makarios? Surely, the key feature of a theocracy is that the ruler(s) - usually, but not necessarily clerics - claim to rule in accordance with the requirements of religious law, as interpreted by themselves. If challenged, they typically claim that their decisions are 'divinely inspired' and that their critics are 'ungodly' and the like. There have been very few theocracies indeed. Norvo (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You do it again - conflate different times and states. Republic Cyprus elected Archbishop Makarios. Modern state republic. Papal States - the very name Papal already says it, especially in XVIII century. Close modern comparison - Vatican and I don't think that anybody's calling it as 'secular". In saying that I agree with your original statement about statement removal.--Nivose (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My dear, where Nivose even used the word "theocracies" and when XIX century Carlyle became supreme authority on the issue?!:)--Nivose (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry. Rjensen (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Since nobody here has provided RS for a decline in theocracies, I just dropped the phrase. I also dropped a reference to unspecified and unnamed "democracies" Rjensen (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events........
- Not to be too judgmental or anything, but the language you're insisting on is a pretty clear example of weaselly, un-encyclopedic narrative. It's opinion, not fact, and doesn't really provide the reader with any real information. Just because two historians, who happen to like the French Revolution, have said that the French Revolution is "widely regarded as the most important", doesn't mean we should put that into the article. Poor editorial discretion. NickCT (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To be sure, just so my position is clear, I'm not insisting on the inclusion of this phrase verbatim. But I am insisting on a statement that places the significance of the event in the wider context of history, since this is definitely an event which qualifies for that kind of distinction. We can restrict the scope, if you'd like, by saying something like one of the most influential events of Western history or one of the most influential events of modern history. That takes care of your objection that the word important is dubious (I disagree, but I'm willing to make the concession anyway) and it brings into sharper focus the historiography which best suits this event.
 * Another thing. You cited WP:WEASEL under the assumption that it's relevant to this sentence. Perhaps you should read your guidelines again. Nowhere in there does the word important come up as an example of something to avoid in characterizing a subject. If the sentence had instead said, The French Revolution is the greatest thing ever or the French Revolution is the worst thing in history then you'd have more of a point. I should note that words like important or influential are not only widely used as adjectives in the encyclopedia, they can enhance a subject's encyclopedic value provided their use occurs in a proper context (ie. the subject actually is influential or important).
 * Third thing: do not attempt to overly flatter your argument. The number of historians who think the French Revolution is one of the great events of history (I've seen it called everything from the "crossroads of modernity" to the "most important event in Western history") runs easily into the hundreds, from all kinds of different nationalities as well. The article happens to cite a few just for convenience, not because only two hold the opinion (and a total of six or seven are being cited now anyway). UBER  ( talk ) 15:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - Sorry. You're missing my point. I'm not objecting to the word "important", I'm objecting to terms like "some historians say". Using "some historians say" is directly equivalent to saying "some people say", which is clearly WP:WEASEL.
 * Anyways, regardless of the phrasing, it's simply narrative opinion that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. We deliver facts, not opinion.
 * And finally, don't pretend you know what my "argument" is. Frankly, I'd agree with the assertion made by the sentence in question (and with your "hundreds" of historians). The French Revolution probably was most of the most important discrete events in modern European and world history. But whether I agree with the opinion is besides the point. It's still just opinion. NickCT (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently I am misunderstanding your point. Let's try again. The article doesn't state "some historians say" but rather just historians widely regard. If you're going to criticize it at least cite it correctly. There's a fundamental distinction between those two phrases, because any crackpot historian can say anything about any event in history (and they have). The current sentence makes it clear that this is a dominant view in the community of professional historians.
 * You make a distinction between fact and narrative opinion. I'd like to make another distinction between facts themselves: the one between metaphysical fact and epistemological fact. It is a fact (an epistemological one) that historians do widely regard the French Revolution as a major event in world history. But Wikipedia should not, and this current article does not, take a stance on the metaphysical question of whether the French Revolution actually is one of the major events in world history (it could be totally irrelevant and we've all been deceived). That's why the article doesn't blatantly say, "The French Revolution is the most important event in world history" or some other such tripe. I'd be the first to object to such language because it's very metaphysical (it implies that it's the absolute truth, with no hint as to which reference frame the statement represents). But the current version of the sentence does state a fact: the fact that historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the important events of world history.
 * So to summarize: the sentence states a fact and it's well-cited. What are we arguing about? UBER  ( talk ) 18:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * re "fundamental distinction between those two phrases" - The phrases are fundamentally similar in that both can lead a reason to immediately ask "Which historians?".
 * re "The current sentence makes it clear that this is a dominant view in the community of professional historians" - Really??? You've polled all the professional historians out there and found this to be true? Has someone else posed? Don't confuse a view from a few historians whom you've read to be the "dominant view of the community of professional historians".
 * re " It is a fact (an epistemological one) that historians do widely regard" - Again; reference please? Show me something that says this is true. That exact statement isn't supported by the current references.
 * "Importance" like "beauty" is a fundamentally subjective thing. If you can't understand how "The Mona Lisa is an important painting" and "John Wilkes booth shot Lincoln" are different in that one is fact, the other is opinion, you need to go back to school. NickCT (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to make another point tangentially related to the sentence above. You're deleting some comments about the Marxist interpretations of the Revolution, claiming things like "assertions not supported by the sources." Soboul was the foremost Marxist historian of the Revolution in the 20th century. I am staring at La Revolution Francaise as I'm writing these words; he makes very clear where his interpretation (and others like him) comes from. So again, unless you have contradictory evidence that the Marxist interpretation was not important, what are you even doing? UBER ( talk ) 18:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This ought to go in another section. But again, you seem conflate the opinion of individual historians you've happen to read with the dominant opinion. That just isn't so. NickCT (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * (Restarting my responses here, getting too cluttered up there)
 * Not only are those two phrases fundamentally different, even the phrase "some historians" is meaningless because it implies like there's an equivalence between all historians. But not all historians are equally important; the opinions of some echo in the community while those of others don't. Palmer and Colton, two of the historians cited in the article, are definitely heavyweights. Why would it matter if I've polled historians? We couldn't use the results anyway (WP:ORIGINAL). Individual historians, if they are influential enough, can be representative of the community, even though obviously not every member of any community will have the same opinions on everything. In this latest reply, you also present a gripe against the word "important" even though you just said up above that you weren't concerned with it. Which is it?
 * If what's bothering you is just the mention of "historians," would you be ok with mentioning the historians by name? Seems tedious but that way it's more specific. UBER  ( talk ) 19:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And since you don't seem to trust individual historians but you still want evidence, here's a good link to get you started on Google Books. UBER  ( talk ) 19:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What historians do is read hundreds of historical monographs and scholarly studies and in this case announce the consensus of those studies. Wiki editors did not do this work, the Reliable Sources did, and Wiki reports it. Rjensen (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with UBER and Rjensen. Some historians review what other historians write and draw conclusions on the degree of acceptance of different views and we can state them as facts.  TFD (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - re "Not only are those two phrases fundamentally different ....equivalence between all historians" - You didn't address my point. I wasn't arguing that all historians were equivalent. I said that both phrases leads one to ask "which historians".
 * re "if I've polled historians" - B/c the sentence you're putting in (i.e. Historians widely regarding) implicitly suggests that someone has polled all historians and determined what the predominate opinion is. That's not supported by the reference. Did you do the poll?
 * re " if they are influential enough, can be representative of the community" - Is this policy or are you making it up? If policy, please provide reference.
 * re " gripe against the word "important"....Which is it?" - Listen. When you start a sentence with "Some people say" or "Historians widely regard", it is bad because it is an indicator that you are leading into a subjective statement (per WP:WEASEL). The use of the term "Historians widely regard" shows that statement is subjective. Further, the use of term "important" is also an indication that it is a statement of opinion. I'm not against the terms, I'm against making subjective, non-factual statements. Wikipedia is WP:NOT opinion. NickCT (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - Sure. But the sources provided didn't saying "Historians widely regard.....". It's just those two sources which said the revolution is one of the most important events in Western history. NickCT (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is one question for NickCT: do you think The French Revolution was "one of the most important events in human history" ?? Rjensen (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Probably. Certainly one of the most important events in modern Western history. NickCT (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So what's the issue. We have a statement attested by three sources that everyone here agrees is true. Keep in mind that a standard textbook like Palmer & Colton (footnote 2) summarizes the consensus of historians. Rjensen (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - Whether or not we agree with an opinion is besides the point. It is still an opinion. Opinions are neither true nor false. They are subjective and they are not encyclopedic. I'm not sure why this is hard to get. Let me ask you this, if it was OK to deliver subjective content of this nature, why does WP:WEASEL warn us against phrase like "some people say"? Should we add a line to this article saying something like "French people widely regard the french revolution as important"? If not, why not? Why not publish opinions from French people, revolutionaries, news boys, etc?
 * The bottom line is that sticking with factual content is almost always the right thing to do. Lines like the one in question simply represent poor editing. NickCT (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "opinion" is certainly allowed in Wikipedia--especially when it represents serious work by leading scholars. Facts vs opinion??? is there a difference in history?? I think not. as for "some people say" it's bad because it does not tell who said it. When Palmen-Colton say it we know we have world-class experts who spent many decades of research on the topic & whose textbook is assigned by thousands of history professors. Rjensen (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

, I disagree with this edit because historiographical information about the French Revolution is of great interest to readers, and Soboul is a major historian on this subject.

I agree that "most historians consider the French Revolution one of the most important events of human history," but NickCT is right that ideally, this should be sourced, considering WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE. -Darouet (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * it is sourced to Palmer & Colton--they cover what historians consider important & devote 10% of their textbook to it pp 341-416 in my 5th edition. They say: "in 1789 France fell into revolution and the world has never since been the same. The French Revolution was by far the most momentous upheaval of the whole revolutionary age. It replaced the old regime with modern society, and at its extreme phase became very radical, so much so that all later revolutionary movements have looked back to it as a predecessor to themselves.... From the 1760s 1848, the role of France was decisive." (p 341) Rjensen (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I should have seen that above. -Darouet (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - Soboul may be a major historian. Emphasis on a. There are lots of other historians. Soboul doesn't get to rewrite the popular interpretation of the French revolution. NickCT (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Some people say" is usually weasel-wording because it implies a degree of acceptance of a view without explicitly explaining what the degree is.  Saying some people say the Revolution was part of a plot by the Illuminati for example would be weasel-wording because it would imply that it was a view taken seriously by historians.  We can and should however explain the degree of acceptance, which is done by using terms such as "the consensus is", or "most historians say."   TFD (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey - Soboul remains perhaps the most well-known representative of a large bloc of French historians and historiography. For some of his material, we would of course use it as a source of fact, sourced but without attribution of opinion. In other cases, we might cite him for opinion or a certain historiographically approach, with attribution. Is this what you're arguing? I'm not sure we're disagreeing. -Darouet (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on French Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131016142218/http://www.h-france.net/vol4reviews/mcphee3.html to http://www.h-france.net/vol4reviews/mcphee3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

French Revolution was against the establishment
It was not against the specific Christian traditions. It was not about the Catholic saints or deep religious beliefs. Rmtrevino (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

"Same-sex relationships"
The French Revolution did result in decriminalisation of same-sex relationships. It resulted in the decriminalisation of male homosexual behaviour -- which is not the same thing.

A same-sex relationship might be between two men or between two women. Female homosexuality was never illegal in France; only *male* homosexual behaviour was criminalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.218.153 (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That might be true - and you would need to present reliable sources to establish it were true - but it wouldn't change the sentence in the lead of the article. Even if female homosexuality were permitted prior to the revolution, and male homosexuality illegal until after the revolution, it would still be correct to write that the revolution decriminalized same sex relationships. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Impact - Ireland
In the short piece about the impact on Ireland (under United Kingdom) - it should be added that the Revolution-inspired Wolfe Tone is considered the father of Irish republicanism and his movement inspired repeated attempts at rebellion and revolution which eventually ended in the partition of Ireland and independence for the southern 26 counties. All current non-Unionist Irish parties trace their ancestry back to Wolfe Tone's ideals. - 80.111.159.148 (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Parlements
Knowing little about the French revolution, my initial impression (which I imagine is a common one) was that the French king was an absolute monarch. But as I read this article I see that his attempts at tax reform were stymied at every turn by a legislative body that I had never even heard of. It would be good if the article could expand on this a little, because the existing context and explanation of this state of affairs is, I would argue, inadequate.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on French Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120117152123/http://www.port.ac.uk/special/france1815to2003/chapter1/interviews/filetodownload%2C20545%2Cen.pdf to http://www.port.ac.uk/special/france1815to2003/chapter1/interviews/filetodownload%2C20545%2Cen.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on French Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151114165139/http://cliojournal.wikispaces.com/The%20Cahiers%20de%20Doleances%20of%201789 to http://cliojournal.wikispaces.com/The%2BCahiers%2Bde%2BDoleances%2Bof%2B1789

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Newberry French Revolution Collection Pamphlets The Newberry Library's French Revolution Collection consists of more than 30,000 pamphlets and more than 23,000 issues of 180 periodicals published between 1780 and 1810. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

A minor point, but surely the nobility was ENsured an adequate food supply, not INsured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.128.130 (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Contradicting Articles
On the Wikipedia page entitled French Revolution under the section Storming the Bastille, it is stated that "...cries of Vive la Nation "Long live the Nation" changed to Vive le Roi "Long live the King".

However on the page entitled Storming of the Bastille under the section Aftermath it is stated that "...cries of "Long live the King" were changed to "Long live the Nation"."

These pages are referring to the same date and event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasfd (talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 June 2009

First Paragraph Misleading - there was no resulting democracy for 50 percent of the population - this warrants to be in the introduction as part of the definition.
The Revolution overthrew the monarchy, established a *republic, catalyzed violent periods of political turmoil, and finally culminated in a dictatorship under Napoleon who brought many of its principles to areas he conquered in Western Europe and beyond.


 * [male controlled]

Republic- a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. Women are people therefore this is not a republic by today's definition, it was not considered a republic by the women of that generation and likewise this was not democracy.

The French Republic did not allow 50 percent of its population to access any of that power. It is a common misconception or just misogynistic to think that the French Revolution resulted in true democracy - French women were not allowed the vote until 1946, long after Turkey.

2) Historians who do not consider the French Revolution as important would not mention it, so how do you grade this? Out of how many 'important' events? Who is on this panel of historians? Very subjective statement, France came long after Greece....and the Revolution was a half-attempt at the progress of human history. Western historians do not know the history of MOST OTHER human populations to any similar degree so I wonder how this statement came about, if it wasn't pure arrogance.

[??] Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history.[2][3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88octopus88 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I scanned a dozen or so current university history textbooks at the AHA convention and every one in Western & World history devoted a lot of attention to French Rev--usually an entire chapter. Rjensen (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

French Revolution entry
there is a phrase in para 4 under Causes - the upper class was always insured a stable living - it would be better expressed as “the upper class was always assured a stable living” Robynpjenkins (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. But in any case, per WP:BOLD, you should just feel free to make such changes yourself. If anyone disagrees they will revert your change (and all such reverts should be understood as: "Hmm. I'm not sure about this. Can we talk it through on the talk page first?"). Only obviously controversial or large changes need routinely be discussed prior to making them. --Xover (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Impact - United States
Section 9.4 (Long Term Impact - United States) refers to the incumbent Jefferson administration of the United States in 1793 as "Republican", which is incorrect; the government was "Democratic-Republican", distinct from the Republican Party of Lincoln and of today, and more closely related to the Democratic party of Jackson and today. This should be changed to read "Democratic-Republican" or, if preferred, "Democratic" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.245.130.33 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's ok. Jefferson and his supporters called it the "Republican Party" as do most historians. Modern political scientists call it the Dem-Rep party. Rjensen (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The article make deeply contentious claims
I added an NPOV, because this article takes the freedom, without an appropriate back up of secondary sources, to express value judgment on the French revolution, which to all historians remains a deeply contentious issue. Hannah Arendt, of course, comes to mind (which the article does not even quote and seems not to be aware of) but hundreds more could be added. The Geopolitical order of Europe is not the result of the French Revolution, but the reaction to it, the Congress of Vienna. I express here my firm belief that the NPOV shall stay in place until serious, non-ideological scholarship, is used to back up what are otherwise rather vague and contentious claims.
 * Which claims in this article are contentious, specifically? Jarble (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, and which ones are "deeply" so? and most important, which RS does Aristotele1982 think are missing and should be included. Rjensen (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2019
In the sentence beginning "Habermas argued that...", "17th century" should be hyphenated, per MOS:CENTURY. 82.98.7.185 (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The fifth paragraph begins :

After the Thermidorian Reaction, an executive council ...

I think it should be

After the Jacobins and Robespierre were overthrown in the Thermidorian Reaction, an executive council ...

Bruce Bodner bebgsurg@tmlp.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebgsurg (talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Strange way it is written
It currently reads "Overall, the Revolution did not greatly change the French business system, and probably helped freeze in place the horizons of the small business owner." The source referenced is not something I can view online so no idea how to fix this. "Probably" doesn't seem very encyclopedic. I looked up "horizons" and found it can mean "range of perception or experience" or "something that might be attained". Never saw it used in this way before. Also claiming it didn't greatly change the business system in the same section that list massive changes in said business system, seems contradictory.  D r e a m Focus  13:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes
Information to be added or removed: Citation needed to the phrase "In an attempt to keep control of the process and prevent the Assembly from convening, Louis XVI ordered the closure of the Salle des États where the Assembly met, making an excuse...". Or alternative wording to avoid misinterpretation. To the effect of "In order to urgently confront the estates on a list of proposals for reform Louis XVI called for a grand séance royale, which would require the closure of the Salle des États, where the Assembly met, for a short period of time so..." Explanation of issue: Citation needed. I can find little evidence to support the argument that Louis XVI was actively trying to prevent the assembly from meeting.

References supporting change: Schama 'Citizens' 2004 Pg 358 Stewartmiller2001 (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Reunion
change ((Reunion)) to ((Réunion))
 * Yes check.svg Done Danski454 (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2019
Proudhon was an anarchist not a socialist 81.6.250.253 (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I can't find any mention of Proudhon in the article. Please be more specific about the change you want made, and make sure you provide a reliable source.
 * To re-activate this request, after you click "edit", change |answered=yes to |answered=no. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 08:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Jacobin ideology
I would like to develop a paragraph on Jacobinism on the following basis:

Jacobinism is an ideology developed and implemented during the French Revolution of 1789. In the words of F. Furet, in Penser la révolution française (quoted by Hoel in Introduction au Jacobinisme..., "Jacobinism is both an ideology and a power: a system of representations and a system of action." ("le jacobinisme est à la fois une idéologie et un pouvoir : un système de représentations et un système d’action" ) This ideology presents, according to Hoel, in L'idéologie jacobine, the following 6 characteristics: 1. Omnipotence of the State (« Omnipotence de l’État »); 2. Despotism of Paris (« Despotisme de Paris »);  3. Colonialism (« Colonialisme »);  4. Cultural genocide (« Génocide culturel »);  5. Rejection of the Social Contract (Rousseau) and federalism (Rejet du Contrat social (Rousseau) et du fédéralisme); 6. Hypocrisy, lies, double speeches (Hypocrisie, mensonge, double discours). --Wordyhs (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Catalyzed by American Revolution
This page used to explain the influence that the American Revolution had on the French people and how it stimulated the French Revolution. Now, the page has no mention whatsoever of the impact of the American Revolution on the French. Nor does it explain the ideals that the French derived from the Americans or the shared-values which led France to largely support the American Revolution. The United States was the first modern Western democracy, and the American Revolution began nearly thirty years before the French Revolution began.

This page also claims that the French Revolution began a 'global transition towards democracy'. That transition was started by the American Revolution, not the French Revolution. Furthermore, the French Revolution was only directly influential in Europe. It had no direct global influence. 021120x (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Since almost none of those points are really correct, it's just as well none of them appear on the page. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting assertion, given that the second paragraph of the page contains this sentence: "The American Revolution helped set the stage for the events of the French Revolution, having shown France that a rebellion based on Enlightenment principles, including natural rights and equality for all citizens, against an authoritarian regime could succeed." It's only one sentence, but it directly contradicts this assertion. MaxwellPerkins (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a neutral article. 021120x (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

disestablishment
The introduction mentions that the Catholic Church was "de-established" during the Revolution. The correct technical term is "disestablish" and the word should therefore be "disestablished". 78.144.205.77 (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2020
Ctrl+F for "September massacres" and "september massacre"

add link for these to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Massacres 100.42.20.206 (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: September Massacres is already linked at its first use. We usually only link to an article once in a page. Danski454 (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Nationalism
The introduction states: "The French Revolution differed from other revolutions in being intended to benefit all humanity, rather than just the nation". However, later in the Long-term impact section it is quoted that the "French Revolution gave a great stimulus to the growth of modern nationalism".

While these are not mutually exclusive, I think the article might be deserving of some explanation of this. For instance, was this goal of the French Revolution clearly subverted by some members (Napoleon?)? Or was the initial goal more complicated than just "humanity > nation-states".

Irving David Rein (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Aulard gives only one sentence to this ambiguous claim, and the Wiki article does not develop it. Other RS do not mention this as an "intended" result. Intended by whom?? So let's just drop the sentence. Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear Rensen. Why did you delete this sentence within 15 minutes? Why did you use the Royal we? Is that right?
 * I think this sentence should be moved - with an explanation needed - and not deleted. It is not untrue, the revolutionaries were aware of the importance of what they did. Not only people also history is sometimes contradictionary.
 * In 1792 they started the Coalition War to export the ideals. Also Aulard is an interesting historian and an expert on Robespierre; he does not need to be deleted. He certainly was not the only author who wrote something about their intention as the revolutionaries themselves believed in it.
 * Someone put a citation of Friedrich von Gentz in the lead as if everybody should know what a German conservative and follower of Immanuel Kant said and understands what is means. I don't think that is the case. It should be moved from the lead to another section which deals with both revolutions or changed into a note; too detailed, woolly, cryptic. Taksen (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * a Wikipedia page should concentrate on presenting facts rather than argumentation.Taksen (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt the claim In 1792 they started the Coalition War to export the ideals.  The RS and Wikipedia all emphasize that France was invaded and the goal was to defend itself in 1792. It was Napoleon that set out to spread French ideals (starting with Egypt). Rjensen (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * On 25 December, Guadet, the chairman of the Assembly, suggested that 1792 should be the first year of universal liberty.[112] In his third speech on the war, Robespierre countered in the Jacobin club, "A revolutionary war must be waged to free subjects and slaves from unjust tyranny, not for the traditional reasons of defending dynasties and expanding frontiers..." There is no reference, and I have no idea where it came from, but there is enough material on this subject. See Maximilien_Robespierre. Taksen (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Robespierre was the leader of Opposition to war with Austria. His said some future time may be ok to impact Europe but not now. That time never came for him. Rjensen (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Anacharsis Cloots seems to have been the man who tried to export the ideals of the French Revolution.Taksen (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed
Citation needed to the phrase: "Despite succeeding in gaining independence for the 500000 thousand Colonies, France was severely indebted by the American Revolutionary War."

My suggestion is to add this link: https://www.worldbyisa.com/15-historical-places-related-to-the-french-revolution/ exactly this information in the 'French Revolution causes'section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldbyisa (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It didn't "culminate" in Napoleon but was perverted by him and his followers
Napoleon fundamentally does not represent the ideas of the French revolution. Quite the contrary. It was therefor a weakness of the revolution period to end in Napoleon. However the article does not make tha clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.235.125.68 (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about Aulard quotation
I question the accuracy of the Aulard quotation in section #Long term impact. It doesn't seem to closely match the Aulard sources (French or English) that I found. I can't find the "as quoted in" source (Tilley, 1922), but both Aulard's French original (1901) (also in French Wikisource), and an English translation (1910) are available in full-text versions online. The ref gives: Aulard in Arthur Tilley, ed. (1922) p. 115. Searching Aulard's original, the closest thing I could find is from Chapter 2. Unless I'm looking at the wrong page entirely in the Aulard original and translation, but I don't see a source in the #Sources or #Bibliography sections for Tilley, so I can't compare it; if anyone knows what that is, please share. Mathglot (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Innocently walking into the minefield
So, as a complete newcomer to the page I am having trouble determining the source of all this contention. Is it this paragraph?


 * "The intellectual origins of the Revolution came from a global network of European and American 'patriots', who shared ideas and political principles, contacts accelerated by the American Revolution.[2] Together, they marked the beginning of the Age of Revolution, which continued into the mid-19th century and impacted much of Europe and the Americas.[3] However, the French quickly discarded the American Revolution as a reference point, and they are generally viewed as distinct events, with different causes.[4]"

I find this generally inoffensive, but have in the past found that some people have other historical paradigms than I do. Is the question whether there is any relationship between the American and the French revolutions?

By the way, the lead is unquestionably too impenetrable and long. I spent several centuries on the French Revolution in high school ;) not that I claim any of that a reliable source, mind you, but I found the lede hard to follow, and I've been taken through all that many times already.  LMK Elinruby (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

A couple of questions:
 * should the lede summarize the article or define it?
 * do the French have more say in the meaning of the French revolution than other parties?

Neither lede mentions two events that I myself think of as seminal: I am not advocating that we add them, at least not yet, especially since the current english lede contradicts #2, but that if you asked me today to sit down and write about the French Revolution, those would a least be in the first draft. I was in fact taught that Lafayette was important, but I kind of agree that he was a major figure in the American revolution, and more minor in the French. But note that the French narrative of the French is much more complex than the American one, with many players. That's just my thoughts coming in. I realize that there seems to be a long history to this argument??, but maybe restating the actual point of discussion would be helpful to more than just me. And no, I haven't read all three articles, I freely admit it, and will go work on that some more now. But I have read all both ledes, and they are definitely different. Elinruby (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) the Enlightenment and Jean-Jacques Rousseau
 * 2) the transition from feudalism and emergence of a prosperous and unhungry bourgeoisie that had the leisure to consider abstract concepts like social structure
 * Later, on second reading of the talk page: adding drama boards to reading list. Not ready to vote in RfC, but leaning to "move down". Elinruby (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * To answer your specific questions.


 * (1) The Lead is supposed to summarise the article content, not define it, and is designed for general users who want a quick overall summary of major events and outcomes (per Wikipedia guidelines on Writing a Good Lead). Because of that, I've focused first on updating the article, then editing the Lead and I've been waiting until the RFC closes on 27 November. Ideally, the Lead should be no more than four paragraphs; over 60% of Wikipedia users only ever read that part of the article, so it needs to be concise (which doesn't mean ten paragraphs of content crammed into four :));
 * That means leaving out quite a lot; the argument has never been about whether there are links between the American and French events but whether they are so significant they need to be included in that summary. The same applies to Rousseau, the Enlightenment etc.


 * (2) The French don't necessarily own the interpretation but understanding different perspectives helps identify our own prejudices eg French v British on Dunkirk in 1940, US versus European views on Versailles in 1919 etc. As someone with a degree in History who's recently spent a lot of time re-reading this topic, I'd say your point #2 reflects US interpretations of their own Revolution.


 * As a general point, Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, designed for general users; more is not necessarily better (as someone who designs online learning solutions, the more content, the less likely people are to read it - the "Bitesize" concept). That means constantly asking the question 'Is this interesting to me versus useful to the audience?' Causes, the Enlightenment, Rousseau, design of the various constitutions are contained in separate articles, and if you want to add additional content, that's probably the best place to start.


 * Hope that makes sense. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Most of it does. I actually found this thought described in the article as "Marxist", which I found interesting. But never mind that. It's a good article, although exceedingly long. I am well into it and don't disagree with much. I was simply describing my possible prejudices and am neither suggesting we put the Enlightenment in the lede nor experiencing any desire to write about it, relax. I overdosed on the period long long ago, and they are both at least mentioned under Causes anyway.


 * Incidentally I translated some of the linked articles. Also incidentally, the lede of the french article is also way too long. I agree with your comments on readability. But: for discussion, do we really have to try to summarize an entire sequence of events? Should we? There are so many coups, empires, plots and political machinations. What if we concentrated on what it was rather than everything that happened? It was an inflexion point in history which ended the feudal system and was in turn seen as a threat by neighboring countries, right? Also, I personally am inclined to givr french wikipedia quite a lot of weight when it comes to the events that led to the French Republic. But I am still reading. I may have other comments, and hope nobody objects to minor style changes. Elinruby (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Views on the Revolution are often a function of whether you consider the sans culottes a politically conscious class movement (Marx) or a "mob" directed by the bourgeoisie (Burke). I got as far as the Revolutionary Wars and decided I'd take a break because the later sections need a lot of restructuring.


 * The Lead (when rewritten) won't cover everything but its an organic process :) to avoid upsetting too many people. First, remove Napoleon; then remove Lafayette.


 * I assume the French probably understand their Revolution best but apparently that's not a view shared by others :)


 * Wikipedia is a collaborative environment so edit away; even if I don't always agree, thinking about why I don't is often helpful. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * At the moment I am only making changes for typos and first references to people, still reading the English. I'd want to read the French article also before thinking about weight, but at the moment am inclined to think that if the French don't think it was important, maybe it wasn't. I'll vote on the RfC later, gotta go. Elinruby (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Style charges
Just noting some repeated changes, in case somebody wants to object. I do not intend to die on any hill for these, but believe they are good changes. I normally wouldn't take them to the talk page, but since there is currently strife...Nor is this intended as some sort of scolding, just notification that I am now also making changes based on these style conventions, though only when there are a lot of the together, or I am editing anyway for ambiguity or awkwardness.
 * It should be parlements not Parlements. Yes this is the name of theses bodies, but there were more than one, and French lower-cases even titles like marquis or duc that refer to specific people. However, Parlement de Paris.
 * Generally, if it is is possible to make a statement in active voice rather than passive, we should do so.
 * Constructions like "(event x) and (event y) with (event c) being also done" bog down readability.
 * If two events, groups or things do something together, then the verb form should be plural, and the action should not be referred to as "this", which implies an object. The resulting text is understandable but the practice impedes readability.
 * I guess we are doing British spelling?
 * In general, the first time a person is mentioned, first name, last name and title should be given, and the name should be wikilinked. In practice, this looks ugly when some aristocrat has six last names and multiple titles. Not sure what MoS says about this, but am trying to ensure that someone who encounters "Marat" and can't remember who he was can look him up relatively easily. Open to suggestions on this, and also for the case where someone has been mentioned, but 2000 words ago.
 * Most important event - flagged this in a few places for a citation, and just found one fairly high up, so the flag can go away and be replaced by that citation, assuming it is verified. Will do this myself as I see them again, but anyone else can also feel free if they choose. Over and out on minor changes for now Elinruby (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * ditto Necker Elinruby (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Contradictions in text
Lede says: and also, above that:
 * "and in November 1799, the Directory was replaced by the Consulate. This is generally viewed as marking the end of the Revolutionary period.''
 * "This culminated in the appointment of Napoleon as First Consul in November 1799, which is generally taken as its end point"

Body says: "On 9 November 1799, the Coup of 18 Brumaire replaced the five Directors with the French Consulate, Bonaparte, Sieyès, and Roger Ducos; most historians consider this the end point of the French Revolution" French Revolution Also, in lede:
 * ___**
 * "In June, an uprising in Paris replaced the Girondins who dominated the Assembly with a Committee of Public Safety under Maximilien Robespierre.


 * This sparked the Reign of Terror,"

In body: "On 17th, the Law of Suspects ordered the arrest of suspected "enemies of freedom", initiating what became known as the "Terror"." French Revolution

This is a separate issue from the current RfC, of course, but should be addressed. Elinruby (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * on closer reading, the three snippets in the first example are, I think, phrasing the same idea three different ways. It would maybe be possible to just standardize the wording if I am right about that, though it doesn't need to be in lede twice, and maybe the details shouldn't be there at all. Note that this article goes well beyond that. The French wiki article stops with the Consulate.Elinruby (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you need to consider the fact that the article is currently in the middle of a substantial rewrite, if you look at the history. A lot of the previous material was rather repetitive - a common issue with articles where material has accreted over time, often by editors who read only a single section - and I was expecting several clean-ups once the whole thing had been rewritten. I've worked on a few articles with the user responsible for many of the recent chaamges to the text and they are extremely conscientious in this regard, so expect further changes in future.Svejk74 (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * of course. I am merely noting where attention is needed. Elinruby (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

One language per word, no??
"Juring" offends my eyes. Is this based on sources? Surely not? I suggest " jureur (oath-taker)". °btw, I have made several minor style changes, mostly concerned with a complete name for people on first reference, which I assume is not controversial, and flagged a couple of ambiguities for later attention by myself or someone else. Elinruby (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-juring is a pretty standard term in English for this.Svejk74 (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering, whether it was bad translation or just that old a word. Thanks. I'll try to find a reference for the usage and put it where it is introduced. Or if you have one handy, that would be helpful. Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I was not able to find one, even in Google scholar or the OED. I do see non-juring used in the 1600 in England, a close analog, but it is of course a different word with the opposite meaning. Open to suggestions. Doing nothing for now. Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Lefebvre, The French Revolution, p.165: "leave non-jurors in office"; Jones (2016) The French Revolution 1784-1804, p.53: "non-jurors [...] clergymen who were refusing to swear the oath"; Kennedy (2000) The Jacobin Clubs..: "The behavior of non-jurors tainted Catholicism"; I can find many others. Not sure what you are doing wrong to not find references? It's a common usage even in connection with the French "refractory" priests.


 * Incidentally with regard to the "non-juring" schism in the Anglican church from the 1690s onwards, the meaning is identical, i.e. those who refused to swear an oath to a new power: it's not the "opposite meaning" at all.Svejk74 (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe it was originally "juring" i objected to, because it looked like an English gerund built onto a French verb. The last time I looked, and I don't care about this enough to double-check, I think it was "non-juring". Perhaps it always was, or perhaps someone changed it. In any event, this renders moot the "opposite meaning" problem I was talking about. I still don't like the usage but I'm considering whether it is correct, and simply very old. My current thought is that either way it is obscure and jarring, and meaningless to me, an editor with an extensive vocabulary in several dialects of of these languages. "Juror" is better than "juring" in this respect since it is at least definitely English, but likely to confuse non-expert readers as it is now strongly associated with judicial settings. If there is an authority for using in *in this historical context*, not one a century earlier in another country, I suppose it's fine, but even if it is technically correct it's still an archaic and possibly anachronistic usage that impedes the readability of the text, whereas good Saxon alternatives exist. This is my point. I have not changed the text, but that is what I think of the wording. I suggest that this is much less important an issue than the length of the text...Elinruby (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A comparative study: How French Wikipedia structures their article
We sometimes get so bogged down in minutiae, that we don't see the forest for the trees. I thought we might gain some perspective on additional ways to improve this article, by stepping back for a high-level view, and examining how we organize the top-level structure of the article by comparing the section structure hierarchy with how French Wikipedia does it with their article on fr-wiki.

To facilitate a comparison between the two, I've extracted the section headers from the French article into a sandbox and translated them. The mediawiki software does the rest, and creates a Table of Contents which exactly matches the Table of Contents of the French article, except for its being in English instead of French. I topped it off with a translation of the French lead, to give a sense of what fr-wiki considers to be a summary of the most important parts of their article.

So, this sandbox is basically a skeleton consisting of a translated lead, followed by a bunch of translated section headers and no body content. You can view the sandbox here. Three-way comparison convenience links: I find that just looking at their Table of Contents/section structure, gives me ideas about what things we might be missing, or stressing too much, or not enough. Details at the sandbox. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * view French Revolution – this is the Table of Contents at our en-wiki article
 * view Révolution française – this is the Table of Contents of the article at French Wikipedia
 * view the French Table of Contents in English at the sandbox – this is the section structure of the French article, topped by the French lead, translated into English.


 * It could also be argued that the French version might be modeled after the English version. You seem to be assuming the French article is automatically better in every aspect. Is the French version Franco-centric? Apparently the words America or American are not mentioned once. The names of Jefferson and Franklin are not mentioned once, as they are in the fr:Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789 article.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021
Remove the extra space before parenthesis in the second to last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the "Role of women" section. Before: > (which would drive them out of business ) After: > (which would drive them out of business) Sparrition (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021
Crisis of the Ancien Regime>Financial crisis. First line reads; 'The French state faced a series of budgetary crisis', should read 'The French state faced a series of budgetary crises' 82.46.215.118 (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV
This article does not meet the fundamental criteria of a good quality page. It starts by quoting a work by James Livesy "Making Democracy in the French Revolution" which is probably one of the most controversial books on the subject, made by an English Historian with a limited capacity of reading French. Livesy is a professor of Global history, not an expert on the French revolution, and his works often are charged with superficiality and unclear referencing. What is more, the entire article does not dwell on the causes of the French Revolution, it offers personal commentaries on it. I reckon it is time to open a serious discussion about this article. There is also a very serious problem with the scholarship used, mostly in English, with the works of Francois Furet mostly quoted via third sources. --86.6.148.125 (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your observations; as the editor most recently involved, I will answer them in order.


 * These are pretty sweeping statements; NPOV, "does not meet the fundamental criteria of a good quality page", incomplete, poor scholarship etc. Articles can always be improved but I think its reasonable to ask for more precision.


 * Objections to Livesy. Leaving aside a fairly one-eyed view of Livesy (How can someone who writes a book on the French Revolution be ipso facto "not an expert", what evidence is there that he has a "limited capacity of reading French" etc), he is one of over 100 separate Sources in the article and used only once to support this statement; Many of its ideas are considered fundamental principles of Western liberal democracy. Are you saying that's wrong?


 * The entire article does not dwell on the causes of the French Revolution, it offers personal commentaries on it. Please supply examples of where it falls short plus what you consider to be unsourced personal commentaries and I will take a look (always bearing in mind this is an encyclopaedia, so some condensing is inevitable).


 * There is also a very serious problem with the scholarship used, mostly in English.. Inevitably, an article on English Wikipedia will tend to use English language Sources - the same article on French Wikipedia is almost entirely based on French language Sources. What exactly do you want to change? Robinvp11 (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Missing word (food)
The sentence "Inefficient agricultural methods meant domestic farmers could not support these numbers, while primitive transportation networks made it hard to maintain supplies even when there was sufficient." in the section Causes seems to end abruptly. It could say "...maintain supplies even when they were sufficient." or it could say "...maintain supplies even when there was sufficient food." Either change would sound better than it stands now, but I prefer the former. This is my first attempt to suggest an edit, and I'm only suggesting it for grammatical clarity, I don't think there's any factual change in this suggestion. Brianflenner (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - but I'd check older versions in the history. Very often the missing words or sentences can be found there. Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've tried to make it clearer, let me know what you think. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021
"Its influence was great in the hundreds of small German states and elsewhere, where it[clarification needed] was either inspired by the French example or in reaction against it[199]" probably means: "Its influence was great in the hundreds of small German states and elsewhere, where other revolutions were either inspired by the French example or in reaction against it". 44gattiinfilax6 (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I had a look at this - the Ketitner reference provided doesn't actually say this :), so I've corrected it. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Geography
Indian constitution and French revolution 2409:4043:2297:401F:0:0:14E8:F0B1 (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Napoleon comes out of nowhere
Half way through the article we start mentioning a certain "Napoleon", and the activities of "Bonapartists", without ever saying who he was or explaining how he was significant to preceding and ongoing events. This needs rather more clarity. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Made a couple of changes, see what you think. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

History
How was the principle of French Revolution adopted by National Assembly 2409:4066:100:CE2F:0:0:166C:D8A4 (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrong page for this question. Please try again at the WP:Reference desk. Mathglot (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thermidorian Reaction
Thermidorian Reaction and the link to the main article Thermidorian Reaction is misspelled as Thermidorean. This should be corrected. Kvmacy (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Spelling changed as suggested to match spelling of main article. The alternative spelling is probably derived from |this book. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

About Slavery and French Imperialism
There is no mention of Sonthonax and Polverel in the article, Sonthonax and Polverel who officially abolished slavery in Saint-Domingue. There is no mention of Toussaint Louverture, either. There is no mention of the Haitian people's struggle for independence. There is a very short article on “French colonial policy”, but what about Toussaint Louverture policy? What about French imperialism in Europe?

In the introduction, it is write: “while phrases like liberté, égalité, fraternité reappeared in other revolts, such as the 1917 Russian Revolution,[2] and inspired campaigns for the abolition of slavery and universal suffrage.”

Well, there was no campaign for the abolition of slavery during the revolution. Instead, there were military campaigns to maintain slavery in Saint-Domingue and to keep Saint-Domingue under French rule.

I wrote this in the introduction: “The revolutionaries, however, remained imperialists who maintained the system of slavery until it was dismantled in Saint-Domingue, following the slave revolt that began in August 1791. Not recognizing the right to independence, nor autonomy, to the peoples of the French empire, those who have become the Haitian people had to fight to overthrow French dominance over Saint-Domingue.”

This is true, and no historian says otherwise. But Robinvp11 deleted it, saying "Inserting this material into the Lede is useless".

I don't understand? Is telling the truth useless? Wordyhs (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Inserting this material into the Lede is useless; what I actually said was "unnecessary", not the same thing. If you prefer, "historically significant, but not necessarily relevant to the Lede of an article concerning the 1789 to 1799 French Revolution";


 * The Lead is not an Introduction, but a highly condensed summary of a much larger article, so inevitably contains only highlights. That's why (for example), the Revolutionary Wars that dominated 1792 to 1799 (when the article ends) are not covered in detail.


 * No mention of Toussaint Louverture, either. There is no mention of the Haitian people's struggle for independence. I understand why these are important to you but neither are central to the French Revolution, certainly not as significant as the Vendee revolts, which are also omitted from the Lead;


 * This is true, and no historian says otherwise. No one, least of all me, is denying the fact of the Haitian revolt, but it only properly got going when Napoleon tried to take it back under the Directory/Consulate in 1801, so largely takes place outside the scope of this article. From 1794 until 1798 (and arguably beyond), Toussaint was actually an ally of France.


 * There was no campaign for the abolition of slavery during the revolution. This contradicts the Law of 4 February 1794 which outlawed slavery in French possessions and the slave trade. It was reversed by the Consulate but again, outside the scope of this article.


 * If you want to expand the section on "French Colonial Policy", feel free but bear in mind it covers the years 1789 to 1799 only, while there are lengthy separate Wikipedia articles on all these aspects.Robinvp11 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Small addition
I propose to add "Intellectual" to the lists of factors triggering the revolution, in the phrase "Its causes are generally agreed to be a combination of social, political and economic factors", since, as shown by Fouret and others, the circle of thought and the French philosophers played a major role in shaping the revolution's development. 80.147.11.76 (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * "Shaping its development" is not the same thing as causing it. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)