Talk:French Revolution/Archive 6

Original RFC
Question: What should we do with the paragraph that says that the American revolution was an inspiration to the French Revolution, currently in the lede?

Good evening all,

I have come across a paragraph discussing the American revolution as a precursor or inspiration to the French Revolution. At first the suspect paragraph was in the lede, which I have now moved to the causes sections, as it seems more appropriate.

In doing so, I reviewed the sources involved for this paragraph, and found them to be lacking. In particular, these two claims are using rather unconvincing, and I'm uncertain of their veracity. Acebulf (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Claim 1

 * Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette saw the French Revolution as a direct consequence of the American Revolution, sending the key to the Bastille, the symbol of the Ancien Régime, to George Washington, where it hangs today in Mount Vernon.
 * (Citation https://www.humanitiestexas.org/news/articles/gordon-s-wood-revolutionary-origins-civil-war)

Discussion
From the original letter send by Lafayette to Washington, with which the key was bundled, that this was a gesture of goodwill towards Washington, which Lafayette considered a mentor.

"Give me leave, My dear General, to present you With a picture of the Bastille just as it looked a few days after I Had ordered its demolition, with the Main Kea of that fortress of despotism—it is a tribute Which I owe as A Son to My Adoptive father, as an aid de Camp to My General, as a Missionary of liberty to its patriarch." ref

I believe the conclusion of that phrase (highlighted in italic) might be open to interpretation that supports the view of Claim 1. However, the citation currently in the article mentions this in passing, and seems to be more an opinion of the historian than an accepted view amongst historians. With additional sourcing, this might be acceptable, but as-is, it is unsupported.

Claim 2

 * The Americans' victory over the British may have been the "single greatest impact" on the start of the French Revolution.(Citation https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-american-revolution-influence-the-french-revolution/)

Discussion
This is certainly not a claim accepted by historians. The cited source reads more like an op-ed than an actual article. Regardless, if we are to include a statement that has that strong of a claim, then we would need at least some kind of scholarly source, and even then, it should probably be phrased like: "Historian John Johnson states that "the Americans' successful rebellion over the British may have been a strong causal factor in starting the French Revolution".

---

As it currently stands, those two claims should probably be removed. It is entirely possible that better sourcing exists, but I have not been able to find it.

With this, I open the floor for discussions as to what we should do with these statements.

Cheers, Acebulf (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think both should be taken out. Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added the RfC to "politics, government, and the law". Perhaps User:Yapperbot might recruit more interested parties that way, or if not, then at least it'd attract people from being on another, somewhat related RfC list. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 17:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In general, if a claim is countered, or is not accepted by most folks, we should put the name of the claimant in the text and not bury it in the citation. Thus, "Historian Zed has written, 'Wye was a better president than Kew,'" rather than the flat-out statement "Wye was a better president than Kew." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Additionally, since an editor disagrees, we can stretch this RFC to talk about whether this subject should be the 2nd paragraph of the article. Acebulf (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The paragraph being included in the lede violates WP:FRINGE, and would require significant sourcing to demonstrate that most historians agree to this, for it to even be acceptable. I think it should either be moved to the causes section, the accompanying article, or be removed entirely. I have notified the editor involved in the reverting so that they can comment here with their justification. Acebulf (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

One thing I can just mention is that I'm pretty sure that does support the position that, as I believe he states, "The French Revolution started in America". I have it on order from my library, and perhaps can confirm soon. Don't know if that is helpful at all. Let me know if I have put my oar in where it does not belong.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * That would be a good addition to the causes section, as I believe there is an argument to be made there, and it at least deserves a mention at Causes of the French Revolution, if not in this very article. A citation either supporting the above claims, or replacing them with more accurate ones could be welcome. I still don't believe it should be held as the one-true-reason by including it in the lede of this main article. Acebulf (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What Schama says (pages 64-67) is the fiscal and legislative weaknesses of the Ancien Regime were further exposed by the enormous debt incurred by the French state in fighting the American War, and their inability to finance the debt was among the causes of the Revolution. Which isn't the same as saying one necessarily led to the other. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, That is not all that Schama says. On page 24 of the paperback edition, he states: "For France, without any question, the revolution began in America." On page 27 he states, "For many of Lafayette's contemporaries in the French nobility, America corresponded precisely to their ideal vision of a society happily separated from the cynicism and decrepitude of the Old World." Also, Chapter One (ii) Heroes for the Times certainly makes the case that George Washington was broadly and greatly admired in France. Referring to Washington, Schama writes, "the American general's reputation had far wider and more potent celebrity as the embodiment of a new kind of citizen-soldier: the reincarnation of Roman republican heroes." Truth is King TALK 18:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be a bit historically naive to assume the French Revolution occurred in a vacuum with no inspirational incentive from the American Revolution just a few years prior. That the National Assembly of France used the American Declaration of Independence to draft the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, by itself, tells us that the French Revolution was greatly inspired by the American Revolution. Statements to this effect from notable figures like Lafayette tend to substantiate that idea. Rather then embarking on a two-dimensional discussion, it should be focused on the idea as to 'what degree' the American Revolution inspired the French Revolution, not whether if it had nothing at all to do with matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between 'influenced' and 'inspired'; yes, events don't occur in a vacuum, but that implies a two way exchange of ideas. Many of the signers of the Declaration were secular rationalists - I will admit I've only glanced at the article on the American War, but despite the huge acres of space devoted to almost every other topic, neither that or those on individuals like Franklin even mention the debt owed to Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Rousseau.

Since Jefferson wrote both Declarations, its not surprising they resembled each other; Lafayette (who presented it to the Assembly) was out of power by 1790 and lucky to escape with his life. So its misleading to use that as an example of 'inspiration'. The two events were very very different in both causes and outcomes; when Americans today complain about 'deadlock in Washington', they miss the point. The framers of the Constitution assumed they'd reached perfection; the system of checks and balances was designed to prevent change. Modern historians argue as to whether 'Revolution' is even the right word for what happened in the US; that's why Wolfe Tone and other leaders of the 1798 Irish Rebellion specifically referenced the French example, not the American.

So two points; (a) 'Inspired' is the wrong word, because it implies assumptions on the causes and impact of the French Revolution that simply aren't correct; (b) if you want to include the flow of ideas (which I'd support), then there's work to be done on numerous articles (staring with the ARW), not only here. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "that implies a two way exchange of ideas" Which were abundant, Robinvp11. American state constitutions had been translated into French and were circulating through French salons as well as published by the French press six years before the French Revolution.


 * Benjamin Franklin discussed the American Revolution and its democratic ambitions with liberal aristocrats, who even had a bust of Franklin sculpted to add to their collection of great men. Not to mention the direct exchanges with other statesmen heavily involved with the American Revolution such as Philip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson, William Short, and Gouverneur Morris. American Fouding Fathers were equally as stimulated by Montesquieu and other Enlightenment thinkers.


 * The American publications were the most influential revolutionary documents in France before the fall of the Bastille.


 * "Modern historians argue as to whether 'Revolution' is even the right word for what happened in the US; that's why Wolfe Tone and other leaders of the 1798 Irish Rebellion specifically referenced the French example, not the American"


 * Neo-progressive historians use social misery, economic deprivation, blood and gore as their gauge of "revolution". Obviously, the American revolution is not brooding enough for them.


 * If we measure radicalism by the amount of change that took place – by transformations in the relationships that bound people to each other – then the American Revolution was not conservative at all; on the contrary: it was as radical and revolutionary as any in history.


 * Wood, as well, who has dedicated the bulk of his career to understanding the formation of the American republic, explicitly states that the American revolution "decisively affected the course of subsequent history." 021120x (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Take out. More tired after the fact by diplomats and politicians, they are totally different in causes.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Robinvp11 — "Influenced" is too generic an idea. It begs the question - 'How' was the French Revolution influenced?  Extortion?  No.  Bribes?  No. Political pressure from the U.S.?  No.  Jefferson indeed wrote both declarations, and that they both resemble each other isn't a coincidence, so to suggest that the one declaration was of no inspiration behind the French declaration again seems a bit naive. That Lafayette escaped with his life really has no bearing on his support for the French Revolution, and his time spent in America fighting for its independence would certainly have its inspirational aspects in regards to his support for the French Revolution. It's understood how the term "influenced" is more neutral, but if it's exclusively used it must be qualified as to how this influence was effected. The term "inspired" seems rather obvious and straight forward, and though it may not come off as neutral, it seems to be the more accurate term and should be employed. Are you saying there are no sources that support the idea of inspired? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Gentz stated that France used the American Revolution as the justification for their own revolution and that it was impossible not to perceive a desire on the part of the French to imitate the Americans. That is fairly unambiguous. "Inspired" is the correct term, and it should be included. 021120x (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is not if one person claimed it, but rather since this part is in the lede, whether this is the mainstream opinion from historians. Otherwise giving prominence to that marginal view would violate WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. I would have no problem including the paragraph (as currently worded) lower in the text, perhaps as part of the "causes" section, but you have reverted me when I have done so without explanation. Acebulf (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Leave in. An abundance of sources already demonstrate an active exchange of ideas. The inspiration drawn from the Americans is not a matter of "if", but, "how much".

The political ideas of the Enlightenment – Locke’s natural rights, Rousseau’s popular sovereignty, Montesquieu’s separation of powers – had once been political abstractions, little more than ideas in books. But the birth of the United States showed that these ideas could serve as a blueprint for modern government.


 * Disputing this promotes a fringe perspective, and negates the neutrality of the article. 021120x (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove from the Lead, for reasons listed below.


 * (1) In general, there are concerns over the tendency of English-speaking Wikipedia editors to take an Anglo-centric approach to historical events, which to me seems validated by this entire discussion. The article on the Revolution in French Wikipedia makes no reference to it being inspired by the ARW, and doesn't even mention Lafayette - only in American accounts is he deemed central to those events.


 * (2) So the idea challenging this approach promotes a fringe perspective, and negates the neutrality of the article is Orwellian double-think; the onus should be to explain why apparently the French have got it wrong ("it" being the most important event in the last five hundred years of their history, which still influences French attitudes and politics today). I'm English and I only got involved in this discussion because having done Revolutionary France as part of my history degree, I was surprised to find such a claim front and centre in the Lead;


 * (3) In this specific case, doing so fundamentally misrepresents both causes and outcomes, and displays a crucial lack of understanding of the Revolution's significance, or why it continues to upset right-wing commentators in a way that is not true of the American version.


 * (4) Discussions of Lafayette, copies of US state constitutions circulating in French salons etc are irrelevant, because they had almost no bearing on the course of the French Revolution. Liberal aristocrats like Lafayette lost control of political events as soon as the Third Estate took control in May 1789, which for many is actually the start of the Revolution. They objected to taxes, economic dislocation, the entrenched privileges of a tiny minority, lack of justice, the misery of the urban proletariat etc, not some fanciful Rousseau vision about the nobility of the American landscape, and Lafayette's daddy issues.


 * (5) I've done you the courtesy of reading the Sources provided and I note you follow Woods (see below) in claiming Neo-progressive historians use social misery, economic deprivation, blood and gore as their gauge of "revolution". That's a decidedly non-neutral POV statement, but on Page 3, Woods also denounces Neo-progressive historians who try to interpret the American Revolution in terms of the French. He specifically denies such a link - you can't have it both ways.


 * (6) Of the other sources provided; the Annie Jourdan article talks about influence (which I've already said is fine), not inspired. A website called Alpha History cannot be considered a better source than Jonathan Fenby or Simon Schama, who don't agree; doesn't make them right but again it speaks to which of us is proposing a fringe view, which should not appear in the Lead;


 * (7) For the third time; Grenz was a conservative reactionary who felt the French Revolution was the cause of nearly every single evil in Europe. He approved of the American Revolution, because he viewed it as essentially conservative, his only caveat being they should have made George Washington a king or dictator, rather than all that Republic nonsense (his view, not mine btw). HE IS NOT A NEUTRAL SOURCE; it's like making the views of David Dukes central to an article on the Black Lives Matter movement. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ,, To the extent that your argument depends on Schama, it is wrong. As noted above he is squarely in the camp of American inspiration. Truth is King TALK 18:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "the Annie Jourdan article talks about influence" | This is being reduced to a game of semantics. As mentioned by Gwillhickers:


 * "Influenced" is too generic an idea. It begs the question – 'How' was the French Revolution influenced?


 * That influence was primarily inspiration. The "influence" Annie Jourdan herself describes is largely inspiration – which she even explicitly states throughout her analysis:


 * most important of these contacts were thus books and newspapers and the interpretations and ideas they inspired


 * Nevertheless, French financial problems and the American and Dutch revolutions inspired the French to think of radical reforms and to justify popular sovereignty


 * As for Lafayette, since 1783 he had displayed a copy of the Declaration of Independence in the entry hall of his house next to an empty frame "waiting for the declaration of the Rights of France." This declaration would later inspire Lafayette's draft.


 * Further, Jourdan had no knowledge of the pedantic dichotomy as was ascribed to these terms in this discussion.


 * However, I see that the present alteration of the lede paragraph has removed not only any mention of inspiration from the Americans, but even any mention of influence – an action for which no basis can be derived even from this discussion.


 * "He specifically denies such a link - you can't have it both ways." | A complete miscomprehension of the source. Wood says the fallacy is to interpret the American Revolution through the lens of the French – often done by neo-progressives, and the inverse of what is being discussed here. That statement has no relevance to the focus of this discussion. Your original comment was that "modern historians" debate whether or not 'Revolution' is the correct term for what occurred in North America. The point of the reference, which has been missed, was that this is not a consensus, as was implied, but the view of a specific school of thought.


 * Wood himself is of the belief that the French saw their own revolution as a direct consequence of the American Revolution (or, at least, Lafayette did):


 * Americans believed that the French Revolution of 1789, a decade or so later, was a direct consequence of their revolution. And Lafayette thought so too, which is why he sent the key to the Bastille, the symbol of the Ancien Régime, to George Washington, where it hangs today in Mount Vernon.


 * "HE IS NOT A NEUTRAL SOURCE". | This is an example of a genetic fallacy, as is the knee-jerk disregard of Llewellyn and Thompson. His observation on the inspiration the French drew directly from the Americans has no bearing on whether or not he approved or disapproved of the Revolution, and does not warrant being mindlessly disregarded anymore than an observation from "David Duke" that BLM began in response to perceived social injustices should be disregarded simply because "David Duke" said it (to utilize the above-provided example). Gentz saw the revolutions and their impacts unfold firsthand.


 * Continued point-blank disregard further raises questions regarding neutrality. 021120x (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've tried to respond to what you've written, rather than ignoring the bits I don't fancy; perhaps you could do the same.


 * (1) Quick reminder; this discussion began because you made extensive changes to a version of the Lead that had been stable for years, without first discussing it on the TP or providing an explanation. We are discussing it because another editor viewed the change as incorrect.


 * (2) You've accused me three times of lack of neutrality and continued point-blank disregard of different perspectives. I've been polite, I've read the sources provided, tried to adjust the wording and even included a reference to Woods in the Lead. That's despite the fact I think you are presenting an American-centric view of history rejected by most American historians, and fundamentally out of sync with an encyclopedia for global users.


 * (3) The Lead summarises the article content and reflects the generally accepted view, with alternatives addressed in the body of the article. Let's assume you know better than French Wikipedia, dozens of historians and all the editors who have worked on this article since 2005; so far, that seems to be based on a book published 30 years ago and a very partial reading of two sources. You still need to show it reflects the majority view; some people suggest you can cure Coronavirus by injecting bleach, they think they're right, they might even be right, they're still a minority;


 * (4) Neither Woods or Gentz are considered unbiased or mainstream commentators on the French Revolution. I've been through Gentz already (unfortunately I'm not intelligent enough to understand the relevance of 'genetic fallacy' to his credibility). Read some of the reviews of 'American Radicalism'; it was widely panned by American historians and Woods' reputation has never recovered. It was part of a triumphalist trend in early 90s American historiography, personified by Gingrich and Buchanan, who were big supporters. You're welcome to argue he's a victim of 'liberal bias' but his is not a mainstream view. Which is the point.


 * (5) You cannot keep using "Lafayette" and "French" as interchangeable eg And Lafayette thought so too, which is why he sent the key to the Bastille, the symbol of the Ancien Régime, to George Washington, where it hangs today in Mount Vernon.


 * (6) Surprised I'm having to explain this but ok; Inspire = implies creation, Influence = guided by. Or in consultant-speak 'Ideation' versus 'Implementation'. The Sony Walkman inspired the concept of mobile music; everything since then such as I-Pods have been influenced by those principles (I don't need you to agree, you asked). Rather than pedantic dichotomy, they are very different.


 * (7) Since Jourdan devotes considerable space to the distinction between 'causes' and 'origins', and Influence appears in the title, that's probably what she means. And having two friends who are professional historians, titles are very carefully thought out, particularly when published in academic journals. You'll never agree, so lets not waste time because it doesn't matter. Her article does not support your claim;


 * (8) Jourdan is challenging French User:021120x equivalents who suggest their Revolution was the starting point for everyone else. She argues the Scots, French, American, Swiss, Dutch were part of a community of ideas, who influenced each other; that's very different from what you're suggesting. In fact, she gives the Scots and even the Dutch a more prominent role in terms of direct impact on the French Revolution. I mentioned previously (a long time back, so you may need to remind yourself) talking about a community of ideas is fine, and could usefully be included in the nightmare of detail that constitutes the article on the ARW. And the revised wording of the Lead reflects that.


 * (9) Knee-jerk disregard of Llewellyn and Thompson; here's what I said. A website called Alpha History cannot be considered a better source than Jonathan Fenby or Simon Schama, who don't agree; doesn't make them right but speaks to which of us is proposing a fringe view,; I'm simply following Wikipedia guidelines on Sources; maybe read them yourself?


 * (10) You have not made a case for including your view in the Lead. Simple as. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

New claim(s)
Some early proponents of the French Revolution were influenced by the American Revolution; though this quickly diminished over time.

From a global perspective, the American and French Revolutions together kickstarted an "Age of Revolution" which spread across the Atlantic.

I think this is the direction we should be going in. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've amended the Lede to reflect this; comments welcome. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Very nicely phrased. Excellent suggestion and implementation. Acebulf (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I could not be more happy with the recent changes that have been made to the lead! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Summary requires more detailed explanation, likely in inclusion of additional section as earlier proposed. Does not adequately address all concerns raised. Pertinent information is omitted; touches on "what" but not "how". 021120x (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to discuss the viewpoint in the proper section of the article. As discussed above, it is inappropriate to include it in the lede. Acebulf (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As in the 18th century, the American war of independence sounded the tocsin [alarm] for the European middle class, so that in the 19th century, the American Civil War sounded it for the European working class. The American people, who set the world an example in waging a revolutionary war against feudal slavery, now find themselves in the latest, capitalist stage of wage-slavery to a handful of multimillionaires. The American Revolution, which in its own time was the model of a revolutionary war, exerted an influence on the struggle of the European bourgeoisie against feudal absolutist regimes. Approximately 7,000 European volunteers fought in the ranks of the American army, including the Frenchmen the Marquis de Lafayette and H. Saint-Simon and the Pole T. Kosciuszko. During the Great French Revolution the insurgents made use of the organizational experience and revolutionary military tactics of the Americans. The victory of the North Americans in the American Revolution promoted the development of the liberation movement of the peoples of Latin America against Spanish domination. The revolution was hailed by the progressive people of many countries, including Russia, where A. N. Radishchev celebrated it in the ode “Liberty.”

Marx, Lenin, and other Soviet scholars cannot in any way, shape, or form be construed as "conservative reactionaries". 021120x (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

refmark2

 * Literally none of these are historians, and none of these claims assert that this is a major view of historians. Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  19:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Marx, K. Kapital, vol. 1, ch. 25. In K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 23.
 * Engels, F. “Rabochee dvizhenie v Amerike.” Ibid., vol. 21.
 * Engels, F. F. A. Zorge, 31 dek. 1892. (Letter.) Ibid., vol. 38.
 * Engels, F. N. F. Daniel’sonu, 17 okt. 1893. (Letter.) Ibid., vol. 39.
 * Lenin, V. I. Novye dannye o zakonakh razvitiia kapitalizma v zemledelii, part 1: “Kapitalizm i zemledelie v Soedinennykh Shtatakh Ameriki.” ::Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 27.
 * Lenin, V. I. “Pis’mo k amerikanskim rabochim.” Ibid., vol. 37.
 * Lenin, V. I. “Agrarnaia programma sotsial-demokratii v pervoi russkoi revoliutsii 1905-1907 godov.” Ibid., vol. 16.
 * Ocherki novoi i noveishei istorii SShA, vol. 1. Moscow, 1960.
 * Foner, P. Istoriia rabochego dvizheniia v SShA, vol. 1. Moscow, 1949. (Translated from English.)
 * Foster, W. Negritianskii narod v istorii Ameriki. Moscow, 1955. (Translated from English.)
 * Fursenko, A. A. Amerikanskaia burzhuaznaia revoliutsiia XVIII v. Moscow-Leningrad, 1960.
 * Aptheker, H. Istoriia amerikanskogo naroda [vol. 2], Amerikanskaia revoliutsiia 1763-1783. Moscow, 1962. (Translated from English.)
 * The American Nation: A History, vols. 8-10. New York [1933].
 * Bemis, S. F. The Diplomacy of the American Revolution. New York, 1935.
 * Hardy, J. The First American Revolution. New York, 1937.
 * Morais, H. The Struggle for American Freedom. New York, 1944.
 * Jensen, M. The New Nation: A History of the United States During the Confederation, 1781-1789. New York, 1950.
 * Gipson, L. The Coming of the Revolution, 1763-1775. New York, 1954.


 * Then, what do these authors qualify as? 021120x (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

refmark3

 * 012210x — Good question. Upon cursory examination I just looked into a few of these authors: — Samuel Flagg Bemis, taught at Yale university, was President of the American Historical Association, and has authored a number of books on the American Revolution, etc. — Merrill Jensen was a professor of history at the University of Washington, and editor of Pacific Northwest Quarterly, published by the University of Wisconsin–Madison. — Lawrence H. Gipson, won a Pulitzer Price for his fifteen-volume History of The British Empire Before the American Revolution, for openers.
 * Acebulf, On what basis is the claim that these authors are not historians?? Evidently you have not gone through any of these works to be making such obtuse claims about their views. Please stop filling the talk page with false claims. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead paragraph on American influences
I removed the second paragraph of the lead, which made fringe claims for the influence of Americans on the French Revolution. If present at all, this should be way down in the body somewhere. This is a highly Americano-centric claim, and by no stretch of the imagination belongs in the lead, nor probably in the body, either. The French Revolution is one of the most studied events in European, even World history, and every corner of it has been examined, in every generation, from every possible angle. If there were genuine, important influences by Americans, then there would be a whole corner of scholarship with multiple books with titles like, "American Influences on the French Revolution". But how many such books are there? Zero. If it were a very minor, but real, influence, then there would be books with entire chapters by that name. I'm not sure how many there are, but in a spot check of general histories of the French Revolution, I found none. I'd guess that less than one in twenty such histories contain such a chapter; maybe less than one in fifty. This makes this a "tiny minority" of views, and per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, it's questionable whether this content should appear in the article at all. Having it in the lead is WP:CHERRYPICKING and highly undue. I've removed it. Mathglot (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This perspective is highly Western Eurocentric. The majority of the sources provided were not written by American scholars. If the American Revolution catalyzed the start of the French Revolution, that should be mentioned. 021120x (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , okay, understand your revert while that's going on. I'll leave it there for the time being. Oh, and I did find one book, regarding Tom Paine; there may be others, but still a tiny minority in the flood, or deluge, of books about this topic. Mathglot (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with you: if the American Revolution catalyzed the start of the French Revolution, that should be mentioned. The burden of proof is on those who believe that this is a significant view of historians, not on those that believe it isn't. Afaic, it's a fringe PoV, and shouldn't be mentioned at all. If yoiu can demonstrate that it's the view of a significant minority of historians, then it absolutely should be there.  However, not before; and if it isn't, then it must be removed by WP:DUEWEIGHT. Mathglot (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The Lead adequately summarises the connections between European and American patriots and the current wording is as suggested by another (American) editor. Previous contributions made by refer to the bias of the 'Brit-clique', while removing edits made to American Exceptionalism on the grounds "This critique is based on European biases and is not something which originated in the US". Without further explanation. You can't have it both ways.


 * This issue has been referred to the ANI (dismissed) and is now the subject of a Dispute Resolution. Its not about the content, but because someone wants to win an argument. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please desist from stalking and WP:HOUNDING. The statement in reference explained that the content in the article stemmed from European scholars, and the sentence in question was deleted by an anonymous user. It was reverted to restore the sentence, as the deletion added nothing to the page and removed pertinent information.
 * The dispute was moved to the DRN at the direction of the administrators in the ANI. Please do not make further comments on this page. 021120x (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , The dispute resolution has been closed on procedural grounds. I am in agreement with Mathglot that this should be relegated to the body of the text. I did find it to be a responsible compromise to the claims made earlier, but I believe that the problematic user is not going to be satisfied in any event, and as such, am willing to support moving it to the body of the text. What do you folks think?  Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  19:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have only just gotten here, and am not aware of previous history. Sometimes that can be a hindrance, occasionally it can be helpful, in the sense of having fresh eyes on a situation. I don't know who the 'problematic user' is, and I don't need to know; it shouldn't affect one's view of content either way. I would merely urge the same forbearance on you; that is, if you believe that an 'unsatisfied problematic user' is the only reason, or the main reason to support moving the content to the body of the article (which is how I read your comment) rather than a pure, policy-based view, then I would urge you to reconsider. Stick to your guns, and propose whatever you think is right per policy; cantankerous users should not affect you either way. Yes, it will be more of a headache for you, because U.P.U. will argue with you; but it's worth it, for the integrity of the article.  Even if I turn out to be that U.P.U.. And remember, illegitimi non carborundum.  Thanks for your comment. Mathglot (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Passing comment. There are just too many accusations of bias, cherry-picking, fringe views, etc coming from both sides of the fence for me to further participate other than to make this statement: The French Revolution almost immediately followed the American Revolution. It would be a bit presumptuous to say the American Revolution was the major inspirational force behind the French Revolution. It would be equally presumptuous to say that it had no, or negligible, influence. Certainly the French had their own reasons for their revolution, and certainly they didn't exist in a box and never looked to the world around them for precedence or help, as did the Americans during their revolution. I've seen enough references to sources that indeed indicate that there is validity to both views, and that they can even overlap. It would be best to say, in effect, some sources say 'this', some sources say 'that' and let the readers decide what is "fringe", "bias", etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Like Mathglot posted above, if there are sources that indicate that this is a view agreed upon by historians (as in, a secondary source that states so, not opinions from individual historians), then please provide it so that we may put this debate to rest. Otherwise, it should not feature in the lede. Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  21:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're asking for a source that speaks for the majority of sources while you seem willing to ignore the views of individual historians -- rather than expressing both views with a neutral statement. If there are enough sources that express both views this can't be ignored, and making up your own demands on the fly isn't helping matters. There has to be a middle ground and there should be a compromise, as was done in the lede of the Causes of the French Revolution article. Good luck guys. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , a few things:
 * That's The latter statement is certainly a false statement, and is based on the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fact that The French Revolution followed the American Revolution, or that it followed the Sino-Burmese War could be totally fortuitous. You'd need to supply valid sources to make the case, for either one. It's not sufficient to say, that it's "presumputous" to say that it had negligible influence, so I reject that part of your comment entirely.
 * Secondly, you say,
 * but once again, that is completely false. It's certainly possible to ignore some sources.  If you find ten sources supporting your proposition, and some else finds ten sources that support the opposite proposition but those ten are actually just the first ten of another eight hundred that support their position, but there are only another severn that support your position, then your position will not be mentioned in the article at all.
 * It seems from both of your comments, that you believe in compromise, and letting everyone have their say, and finding some intermediate position. Admiriable perhaps, in business, and other social situations, but entirely inappropriate here. At Wikipedia, the article must summarize the majority and significant minority viewpoints, and must ignore the views expressed by only a tiny minority.  I don't see that that has been established yet.
 * Please don't misunderstand me: you might think I'm opposing you: I'm not. I'll switch my view 180 degrees, and come down hard on saying that the American revolution was the only or major cause of the French revolution, if the sources support that. I have no dog in this race, and care only that our policies of WP:NPOV and in particular WP:DUEWEIGHT are being followed.  My impression is that they are not being followed; but I may be wrong. However what is incontrovertible, is that this is not about compromise, and it is not about airing opinions in the article "on both sides".  What we must do, is find what the majority and significant minority views are on this topic.  If the view that the American influence fits in either of those buckets, then it goes in the article body, if it doesn't, it goes nowhere.  If on top of that, it is a major influence, it could be summarized in the lead, otherwise not. The task here, is to assess how significant this view is, compared to all the other views.  My impression so far is, that it is a tiny minority view; however I'm perfectly willing to be proved wrong and shown otherwise.  Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)  updated to fill out quotation; by Mathglot (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems from both of your comments, that you believe in compromise, and letting everyone have their say, and finding some intermediate position. Admiriable perhaps, in business, and other social situations, but entirely inappropriate here. At Wikipedia, the article must summarize the majority and significant minority viewpoints, and must ignore the views expressed by only a tiny minority.  I don't see that that has been established yet.
 * Please don't misunderstand me: you might think I'm opposing you: I'm not. I'll switch my view 180 degrees, and come down hard on saying that the American revolution was the only or major cause of the French revolution, if the sources support that. I have no dog in this race, and care only that our policies of WP:NPOV and in particular WP:DUEWEIGHT are being followed.  My impression is that they are not being followed; but I may be wrong. However what is incontrovertible, is that this is not about compromise, and it is not about airing opinions in the article "on both sides".  What we must do, is find what the majority and significant minority views are on this topic.  If the view that the American influence fits in either of those buckets, then it goes in the article body, if it doesn't, it goes nowhere.  If on top of that, it is a major influence, it could be summarized in the lead, otherwise not. The task here, is to assess how significant this view is, compared to all the other views.  My impression so far is, that it is a tiny minority view; however I'm perfectly willing to be proved wrong and shown otherwise.  Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)  updated to fill out quotation; by Mathglot (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

— Upon review, no one wants the lede to say that the American Revolution was the "only" or the "major" cause of the French Revolution, so let's not create a straw man on behalf of other editors. You're saying that you support NPOV but at the same time you oppose representing both views with the claim that the majority of historians have only a one-sided view, that the American Revolution, had little to no influence. That you oppose this idea -- "If there are enough sources that express both views this can't be ignored" --  only serves to demonstrate that you seem to harbor a bias of  your own, which was also revealed with your "Americano" accusation. — Where have you substantiated that most historians believe that the American Revolution had little to no impact on the French Revolution? You presented a google list of sources with the claim that that none of them support the idea that the American revolution had little to no impact on the French Revolution, but take a real look at some of the books listed there. Thomas Paine and the French Revolution. Here's another list you might want to avoid consider. — Was it also a coincidence that Thomas Jefferson was the one chosen to author the French Declaration of Independence? Sorry, but there are too many sources out there for any one editor around here to be making sweeping one-sided claims such as the ones you're making. Meanwhile you shouldn't be making controversial deletions in the lede in the middle of a debate. That too, also demonstrates an acute bias on your part. Sorry about the curt tone, but you seem to have no intention in reaching a balanced compromise that reflects 'any' influence the American Revolution had on the French Revolution, regardless of the sources support that premise, and regardless of the connections between the two revolutions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. As I said before, I care not a jot what the lead or the body ends up saying, as long as it adheres to policy. It's fine with me, if American influence was the majority, or the entirety, of the causes; or conversely, if it was a significant minority view, or if it was not an influence at all. I really don't care. We merely need to find the views that correspond to the preponderance of reliable sources. The crucial things to understand here, in my view, are these:
 * WP:Verifiability requires that all assertions in the article be verifiable with reliable sources. It's clear that you understand this perfectly well, as you have offered such sources. Bravo; we're in agreement.
 * With respect to the verifiability of assertions, per WP:ONUS the burden of proof is on those wishing to advance a particular point of view. I think you understand that, but I'm not sure.
 * WP:NPOV, and in particular, WP:DUEWEIGHT requires that the article appropriately represent all majority and significant minority views in the article, in proportion to their weight in independent, secondary, reliable sources. Based on what you've said above, it's not at all clear to me if you understand the import of WP:DUEWEIGHT or not, especially wrt this article.
 * This last point concerning DUE WEIGHT is particularly important in this case, because nobody is disputing that there are reliable sources on both sides, but that is not what this content dispute will turn on; it will turn on the proportion of sources that line up for each viewpoint, and that's clearly a WP:DUE issue. It is the proportion of all sources that support one viewpoint or another, that will decide the matter; not whether you can find one, or three, or ten good sources, and that therefore calls for "compromise"; no, if that is how it ends up, that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE.  WP:DUE governs here.
 * The rest of what you say above, repeatedly, seems to me not to be about improving the article at all, but rather about my supposed bias, my supposed bad faith, and my supposed accusations; These comments are not an appropriate topic for an article talk page, so I'm not going to respond to them. Please don't repeat any of that here; instead, stick to discussion of how to improve the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in particular, with respect to this:
 * To the extent that 'this' and 'that' are roughly 50-50 opinions among historians, I agree with the first part of what you said. However, we can't expect readers do the research that encyclopedia editors are called upon to do. One of our main charters is to do that work for them; we don't draw any opinions ourselves, but we do summarize what's out there in due proportion to their preponderance in the literature.  If it's ten to one in favor of one view, we don't say, "some sources say 'this' and some sources say 'that'," that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE.  Instead, we say, "the great majority of historians have taken 'this view'  but there are a few who espouse 'that view' ". And we certainly do not include fringe viewpoints and "let the reader decide"; that is contrary to neutrality policy. Again, it's all about WP:DUEWEIGHT, which is key here. Mathglot (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No one has said or is saying that the French Revolution was caused by the American Revolution. This is a straw man argument. The discussion is that the French drew inspiration and influence from the Americans, which is indisputable, and warrants inclusion.
 * Please do not make further comments. This matter is being reviewed by the DRN. They will not look over it if there is an active discussion. 021120x (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not make further comments. This matter is being reviewed by the DRN. They will not look over it if there is an active discussion. 021120x (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

(1) Before anyone comments further, can I suggest reading what the Lead actually says, then arguing about what it should say. (2) It is stated above this is simply about "the French drew inspiration and influence from the Americans, which is indisputable, and warrants inclusion." If that is so, I invite everyone to look at the version I produced on 13 September, amended following input on 8 October; see if you can figure out why it was felt necessary to raise first an ANI, then a DRN. Given the speed with which they were resolved, I'm not the only one.

(3) That's not to say I don't have a good idea. You cannot 'bluff' on Wikipedia; everything you write (even amended) can be viewed by anyone. If you claim your wording comes from another editor, and is the result of 'editorial consensus', its easy to check. If you accuse others of lacking neutrality, you better make sure your personal TP isn't littered with interactions proving the opposite, and your personal edit history doesn't contain multiple references to 'British nationalist bias' or Europeans in general lacking insight on American affairs. As a Brit who lived in the US for 12 years and whose kids still do, I'll leave you to imagine how ironic it is to hear that claim.

(4) The good thing about Wikipedia is its full of intelligent people, with different perspectives, from whom you can learn. If you want; I found the article by Annie Jourdan really interesting, and I've learned something. If all you've taken away is to confirm how right you were all along, then hurrah for you I guess, but what a sterile world that must be.

(5) The bad thing about Wikipedia is its full of intelligent people; you might be the intellectual giant of Podunkville, LA, or Greater Dribble, Nowhereshire, able to stun others into submission by your ability to seamlessly switch between 'influence', 'inspire' and 'catalyse'. In the world of Wikipedia, people know what 'ad hominem' means, and if you supply references, there's a good chance someone else will read it rather than just being awed by your ability to dig it out.

(6) On a positive note, I've taken a look at the article in general and its a mess - multiple repetition of the same detail, confusing timelines etc. I'm doing some work on it, (constructive) suggestions welcome. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Neither the ANI nor the DRN are resolved. Endeavor to cooperate with the moderators, and do not make further comments. Additionally, cease the character assassination. 021120x (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)



editbreak

 * Mathglot, it would be nice if you didn't recite policy and guidelines as if they automatically support your opinions. You have not made the case that any American influence on the French Revolution is a "fringe" theory. A fringe theory, or view, is something that is quite rare and highly unusual or unlikely, covered by no more than one or two sources out of dozens, and that is far from the case here. Also, we don't count up the sources on both sides of the fence to make a determination as to the weight of an issue.  If opinion 'A' has 20 sources supporting it and opinion 'B' has 10 sources supporting, it doesn't 'automatically' mean that opinion 'A' has twice the weight, so it would be best if you didn't try to advance your opinion with simple addition.  As you admit, there are sources that support both views, and the views do not necessarily oppose each other but can overlap.  Again, there are enough sources out there that can allow us to make a neutral and objective statement as we currently have in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , no one is under any obligation to "[make] the case that any American influence on the French Revolution is a 'fringe' theory". It simply is not necessary: per WP:BURDEN the onus is on those wishing to include material, not on those removing it. Also, your understanding of what a fringe theory is in the context of Wikipedia, is mistaken. (In particular, "FRINGE" is not an assessment of argument quality, or of correctness of belief; it could be that the FRINGE belief is the accurate one, and the majority view is false.) See WP:FRINGE.
 * Your comment about opinions 'A' and 'B' is definitely on point here; but in fact, contrary to your assertion, it does mean that opinion 'A' has twice the weight as 'B'; in fact, it's crucial. The trick is, to find the sources in an impartial manner, so they can be properly compared. That is more art than science, and reasonable people may disagree on what the data shows, but at least everyone should agree that WP:DUEWEIGHT is the crucial factor in determining what is, or isn't, majority opinion, minority opinion, or fringe, and the starting point for any investigation of it. If we don't start from basic policy, then it's just chaos.
 * You come back again and again to the view that if we find, ten, or a dozen sources on each side of the argument, that is sufficient to add both to the lead. But that is simply a mistaken view that is not supported by policy; that's just not how it's done at Wikipedia. Doing it that way would leave the article in a misleading state of WP:FALSEBALANCE. I've explained this about as much as I feel able to, and it feels like I'm not making myself understood. Perhaps I haven't been clear, and someone else can give it a try.  Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I found this ironic:
 * Yeah; that's pretty much exactly what we do. See WP:DUEWEIGHT. Mathglot (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Robotic nonsense. What would you do if there were 10 sources supporting view 'A' and 8 sources supporting view 'B'. Make the claim that view 'A' has 20% more weight than view 'B'?   I think we've heard enough about this approach. Also, your recital about Falsebalance functions as a two way street. Coming up with a measure of sources that are greater than the other could just as well give us a false balance. You still haven't made the case that there is any "fringe" theory or view being advanced here, and your attempt to count (cherrypick?) the sources to establish this doesn't wash when you consider we are talking about something that is not tangible and wholly subjective. i.e.Influence.  In such a case we look to the facts, and there are more than enough facts to make the simple deduction that the American Revolution, and its victory over Britain, France's arch enemy, gave a measure of influence to the impetus behind the French Revolution. To claim each revolution existed in a vacuum would be a little ridiculous. Meanwhile you have yet to establish that any view is "fringe" and your math approach isn't at all convincing to anyone who has their eyes on the facts and all the varied sources out there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We are talking about something that is tangible, i.e., sources. The "math approach", as you call it, isn't mine at all; it's Wikipedia policy. Mathglot (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We are talking about something that is tangible, i.e., sources. The "math approach", as you call it, isn't mine at all; it's Wikipedia policy. Mathglot (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Can we take a step back and try to include fewer accusatory statements? On a second note, as stated above, unless we have reliable commentary on what historians actually believe, then guidelines would favor it being left out entirely. Citing WP:UNDUE is correct here. Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  00:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no conceivable way that an individual holding a neutral and objective viewpoint can question whether or not reliable commentary exists at this point in the discussion, even without knowledge of what has already been prematurely subtracted from the page. 021120x (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, there is nothing in WP:DUE that indicates the idea that if you have a measure of sources higher than opposing sources that this automatically renders the opposing view as fringe or highly unlikely. A fringe theory or view is only deemed as such when there are little to no sources to support that view. You have yet to even come close to proving any such claim. There are enough well sourced facts that support the idea that the American Revolution had a fair measure of influence on the impetus to bring the French Revolution about. Thomas Jefferson wrote the French Declaration of independence. Benjamin Franklin, US Minister to France, a political philosopher and his close friend comte de Mirabeau, a French revolutionary writer, constantly shared their ideas of revolution. Lafayette, when he returned to France after the American Revolutionary War, fully supported the prospect of democracy and a French revolution, and along with Jefferson, worked with Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès when they drafted the French Declaration of the Rights of Man -- and there are plenty of sources that cover these things. This is not a contest about who has the largest stack of books, and again, you have yet to prove you have. In such cases we look to the established facts to see if they are supported by the sources. You need to put your unsupported math claim aside and start considering the actual history involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think the idea that the American revolution influenced the French revolution is fringe, but including it so prominently does seriously violate WP:WEIGHT, in my opinion. From those who want to include it so prominently, I would like to see a good analysis of sources that supports giving it this much weight. For example, can we look at the weight given to this aspect of the French revolution by a few widely used reference works? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I haven't made up my mind on the question of whether it is or isn't fringe, and we'll need a whole lot more data than we have now in order to decide that question. The section below this one on tertiary sources is a start in gathering that data. So far, we have three highly reliable, tertiary sources, and there's no indication so far of the American Revolution's being considered any kind of influence. The only connection, which pretty much everybody mentions, is that the choice of the French to intervene in the American Revolutionary War bankrupted the French treasury, and lack of funds is usually listed as one of the causes on all the lists I've seen so far as possible causes of the French Revoltion. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Putting the influence of the American revolution in the 2nd paragraph of the lede is giving that influence way too much prominence (as of my writing, the 2nd paragraph is all about this relationship). If the relationship between the two revolutions is discussed, it should be somewhere in the body, probably not in the lede, and certainly not in the 2nd paragraph of the lede. For comparison, the French version of the article does not even mention the influence of the American revolution at all (except to mention France's war debt). -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

refmark4

 * Currently there is only one brief statement in the lede intimating the idea of influence, and it's not committed to American influence. i.e." a global community of European and American 'patriots', who shared ideas and political principles, contacts accelerated by the American Revolution". This doesn't come off as anything too over stated.  Given that the French Declaration of the Rights of Man was authored by some of the major American forefathers, and since the American Revolution was fresh in the minds of the western world, and then some, opening the door, wide open, to the idea of throwing off ruling monarchies, I'm not really seeing anything that comes off over-stated. However, we can transpose the paragraph involved with the one beneath it, as it seems to make for a better narrative flow anyway.  As of this writing, the paragraph in question is now the third paragraph in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is a passage, taken from one of our sources, that should help in the understanding in how the American and French revolutions had more than just a passing relationship. For whatever it's worth, this is not an American source. "From the beginning of the war, Franklin enjoyed great popularity as the paragon of modern virtue; for instance, liberal aristocrats commissioned a sculpted bust of him to add to their collection of great men. Franklin and his admirers discussed the American Revolution and its democratic ambitions; indeed, American state constitutions had been translated and were circulating through salons and the press six years before the French Revolution. French ministers' attempts at reform in the 1770s and 1780s further encouraged these discussions."  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Lafayette's writings on the American Revolution also had a measure of influence in France during the years before the French Revolution. Of the American Revolution he wrote : "May this Revolution serve as a lesson to oppressors and an example to the oppressed." These words were reprinted in almost every French journal at that time., pp. 172 We can only speculate as to 'how much' writings like this impacted the French revolutionary mindset, but when we consider that Europe had their eyes on America during its revolution, especially France, its primary ally, it's not difficult to see that American Revolutionary thinking helped to fan the fires of the French Revolution. Author Thomas Carlyle is also not an American source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Assessment of views on American influence based on tertiary sources
As the French Revolution is widely covered, there is no benefit to the discussion in listing what individual authors have to say. In an attempt to break this logjam, what we need, is some solid data about what the majority/minority/tiny minority views are, in order to make any progress. Bearing in mind that per WP:BURDEN the task of proving sufficient support for the American-influence theory lies squarely on those who wish to include it, so, in that sense, those *not* wishing to include it don't need to prove anything at all (contrary to some oft-repeated, non policy-based insistence above that they do), I think that this is nevertheless not an intractable problem, so I'll go ahead and give it a shot.

Both Acebulf and User:Thucydides411 are on the right track here, imho, as the only way to establish the proper treatment of American influence in the article. As Acebulf said, "unless we have reliable commentary on what historians actually believe then guidelines would favor it being left out entirely, and Thucydides411 offered another approach, mentioning that that French article doesn't mention it at all, other than regarding the war debt.

So, I'd like to propose an approach that might shed some light on the question of what the majority/minority views are; namely, the use of tertiary sources. Because the French Revolution is one of the most studied topics in history, it is more difficult to assess the numbers, and thus the weight they represent, by going straight to the secondary sources; it's an embarrassment of riches, and a lot to wade through. (There are ways, however; more on that later, if this approach is inconclusive.) Tertiary sources are "publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources." Besides encyclopedias, that could include good college textbook introductions, historical dictionaries, and similar sources. Encyclopedias are the classic tertiary source. Historiographical reviews or survey articles that look at the treatment of the aggreagate of historians on the topic, would be another tertiary source. A good tertiary source should give us some idea of the general view of historians on this topic, both based on what they say about American influence, and also by what they don't say. If we have a dozen reliable tertiary sources, the "average" will give us an excellent view of the views of serious historians on this topic.

I hope you will help out, by adding items to the "Survey" section below. If you are willing to participate in this approach, and in order to keep things on track, and comprehensible, I'd like to propose a methodology to go along with it. The goal here is to select and summarize one encyclopedia article on the topic, and add your report to the bullet list. So please select one tertiary source, read it through, and make a brief synopsis of it, including some statistics on whether they talk about American influence, and to what extent. I'll include two subsection headers below: "Survey" and "Discussion". It's not by accident that this parallels an oft-used Rfc approach, but this is not an Rfc. (If this approach goes nowhere, we might need an Rfc, later.) In the "Survey" section, please add a bullet item containing the name of your encyclopedia (or other tertiary source), a citation for it, and then not more than a couples of sentences about what you found. Ideally, your survey summary should betray no clue where you stand on this issue; just a dispassionate assessment of what this one source says about it. Please don't "reply" or add other commentary following someone else's tertiary bullet synopsis; let's keep the "Survey" section lean and mean, and use the "Discussion" section for commentary. Also use the "Discussion" section, if you feel that a sentence or two just isn't enough to fully describe what your source says about this. (Or, use a long quote param in the citation.) The goal is to have a lean "Survey" section that has a good number of tertiary sources, each in one bullet item, which is brief, and no discussion there, so you can run down the whole bullet list rapidly and compare. Longer comments and responses to other users should go in the "Discussion" section.

I'm not opposed to changing the methodology if someone has a way to improve it, but can we at least get started with it this way? This Talk page has been going around in circles with no real progress in finding consensus, afaict, and I think this may get us somewhere. I'll start, with one bullet item for the "Columbia Encyclopedia". Please add more! After we have a bunch of them (I'm hoping for a dozen) we can step back, and see where we are with this. Please see guideline at WP:TERTIARY for what sources are applicable here. Ready, steady, Go! Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey of 3ary sources



 * Encylopedia Galactica – My summary of what this encyclopedia has to say about American influence on the French Revolution. List of main causes of the F.R. listed in this article, are: 1. Foo; 2. Bar; 3. Baz; 4. Quux. The number of times "American influence" (or revolution, or cause, etc.) mentioned in this article is: 99. The most typical is this quote: "The American Revolution caused the galaxy to rally to the Federation." (Any other helpful remarks about the source, like # volumes or pages, goes here.) /Your user-sig/


 * Columbia Encyclopedia – No mention of American influence. Three causes mentioned in lead: 1. intellectual movement based on Enlightenment; 2. rebellion of lower classes; 3. assertion of the new capitalist bourgeoisie against the ancien regime's restrictive social and economic system. Lower down, #4 lists the "immediate cause". Quote: "The immediate cause is without doubt the bankrupt state of the public treasury." The words "American Revolution" mentioned once, in the context of France's intervention having "resulted in a gigantic public debt." (One-volume 'pedia, 950pp; FrRev article is about 2/3 of a page: 93 lines, ~814 words). Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia – Nothing about American influence, other than war debt. Lists 3 causes: 1. underfed population; 2. loss of support for feudal system,; 3. financial crisis. "American influence" not mentioned in this article; (one mention of the financial burden from the Revolutionary War). Closest to assigning influence, is this: "...and a fiscal crisis worsened by participation in the American Revolution." (1792 pp. in one vol.; article is 37 lines, ~330 words) Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia Britannica (French Rev.) – nothing about Am. influence (other than the debt). Lists six causes in the body of the article: 1. resentment among the bourgeoisie about powerlessness; 2. peasant resentment of feudal system; 3. widespread influence of philosophers arguing for social reform; 4. govt. bankruptcy due to participation in Am. Rev.; 5. crop failures compounding economic problems; 6. monarchy lost cred; couldn't adapt to societal changes. (There is also a separate list of causes in the right sidebar, essentially the same, but ordered and worded differently.) The number of times "American influence" (or revolution, or cause, etc.) mentioned in this article is: 4. The most typical is this quote: "(4) French participation in the American Revolution had driven the government to the brink of bankruptcy." (Online encyclopedia; 86 paragraphs, 1,922 words) Mathglot (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Salem Press Encyclopedia – No mention of American influence. List of main causes listed in this article: 1. socioeconomic disparities; 2. resentment of privileges enjoyed by elite classes; 3. Enlightenment principles fueling opposition to feudal inequities. The number of times "America" mentioned: once: in a quote about heavy expenditures "in the Seven Years’ War and... the American Revolution left the government in financial peril, leading to higher taxes and reduced benefits for citizens." (Online resource via EBSCO with public library login; 60 paragraphs, 2,205 words.) Mathglot (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Encyclopédie Larousse – No mention of the influence of the American revolution. Main causes (going by the subsection headings): 1. Poverty of the people, 2. The economic crisis, 3. Urban and Rural Revolts, 4. The Bourgeoisie (richer and more industrious than the nobility, but shut out of high stations in society; influence of the philosophes on the bourgeoisie; the monarchy incapable of reform), 5. The aristocracy (still rich, but menaced by possible loss of wealth; the "nobility of the robe" opposed to the king but still conservative), 6. Feudalism (serfdom). Thucydides411 (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia of Modern Europe – Nothing about American Revolution influence (other than debt). Main causes (historians agree on #1, disagree on others): 1. financial crisis caused by participation in American War; 2. "long-term pressures of royal state-making"; 3. challenge to the nobility from bourgeoisie and peasants; 4. maybe "only short-term and therefore relatively unimportant causes"; 5. interrelated economic, social, and cultural changes undermining the bases of social and political authority. The number of times "American influence" (or revolutionary war, etc) mentioned in this article (other than war debt) is: 0. The most typical is this quote: "Historians agree that it was this financial crisis that erected the stage on which the French Revolution of 1789 was enacted. They do not agree, however, on whether this was only the immediate cause of a much longer and deeper crisis within French society." (139 paragraphs, 7,718 words; causes are worded somewhat vaguely and hard to summarize; hence double quotes in the numbered list) Mathglot (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * New Catholic Encyclopedia – Nothing about Am. influence. This entry couches causes (unsurprisingly) in terms of religious history and philosophy. List of main causes: (quotes sources from the 18th to 20th c.): 1. a death struggle between Christianity and a diabolical philosophy (1796); 2. a trial permitted by Providence to revivify Catholicism (1796); 3. the fruit of a plot hatched by philosophers, freemasons, and fanatics to destroy the Church (1797); 4. an essentially religious conflict whose goal was the triumph of the spirit of enquiry and of liberty (1865); 5. financial, national security; and not a premeditated war against the Church (20th c.). The number of times "American influence" (or revolution, or cause, etc.) mentioned in this article is: 1: ("the Declaration of the Rights of Man [was] inspired by the American Declaration of Independence."). A typical quote is the intro: "The French Revolution (1789–99) was not merely a violent and decisive overthrow of the political and social structures of the French kingdom; it was also a spiritual and religious drama." (90 paragraphs 6,394 words) Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Gran enciclopèdia catalana – No mention of American influence. Main causes listed in this article: 1. failure of the Ancien Regime to adapt to new economic and social realities; 2. exclusion of the bourgeoisie from political power; 3. effects of the economic crisis on the peasantry; 4. ideals of progress and happiness put forth by Enlightenment philosophy. The number of times "American influence" (or revolution, or cause, etc.) mentioned in this article is: 0. (in Catalan; 14 paragraphs, 1511 words) Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

reference mark1

 * I already cited Bolshaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya 3rd Ed. above. This is from its entry on the American Revolution: – The American Revolution, which in its own time was the model of a revolutionary war, exerted an influence on the struggle of the European bourgeoisie against feudal absolutist regimes. Approximately 7,000 European volunteers fought in the ranks of the American army, including the Frenchmen the Marquis de Lafayette and H. Saint-Simon and the Pole T. Kosciuszko. During the Great French Revolution the insurgents made use of the organizational experience and revolutionary military tactics of the Americans. The victory of the North Americans in the American Revolution promoted the development of the liberation movement of the peoples of Latin America against Spanish domination. The revolution was hailed by the progressive people of many countries, including Russia, where A. N. Radishchev celebrated it in the ode “Liberty.”

Will go back for entry on French Revolution. 021120x (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Encylopedia Britannica (Causes) – This is a cross between an encyclopedia article and a historiographical survey of the causes of the FR. It talks about "schools of interpretation", and names schools, periods, prominent historians and their pet theories. A bit difficult to summarize here, because it talks about one "school" and then other groups that rebut it, and flits back and forth from historiography, to encyclopedic summary coverage. Some "chools" mentioned include: • the "social interpretation" (including class war); • the "transformation of culture", including battling Marxist views from 1930s-70s, or revisionist (1980s) views of the bourgeoisie's role; and • a "transformation of culture". A typical quote contrasts two modern views: "What really mattered was the desanctifying of the monarchy, the new understanding of the self and the public good, and the belief that thinking individuals might seize the state and fundamentally reshape it. Other historians, by contrast, have emphasized the persistent liabilities that French political culture carried through the Enlightenment, such as the suspicion of dissent and the readiness to rely on force to subvert it."

Discussion
Within the constraints of WP:TERTIARY, please choose your sources as randomly as possible. Any reputable encyclopedia should be fine. I used the Columbia, because it was sitting on my bookshelf, and there was no way I could know what it said about the French Revolution ahead of time; I didn't pick it because it agreed (or disagreed) with any opinion I might have. Regarding the Columbia Enc., this is a 1980 paperback, 1-volume, 950-page concise encyclopedia. I don't think that's "too old" for something that happened in 1789, but if someone has a more recent edition, by all means add it.

Now, it's your turn. Please add a bullet item above, with a synopsis of your encyclopedia selection. Important: secondary sources are endless, not appropriate here, and may derail the discussion. Please stick to the WP:TERTIARY sources. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Added two more; please add what you can. Mathglot (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Added Salem Encyclopedia. I had not heard of this before, but it was the first one that came up when I searched for "Encyclopedias" in the "eLibrary" section of my public library. Salem is directed mostly at high school and university students. It came up via EBSCOhost; this is a free resource, but requires registration through any participating public library. Mathglot (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is the right way to address the question. Thank you for putting together these sources. If I can figure out what the correct tertiary reference works are in French, I will see what they say about the relationship with the American revolution. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the Encyclopédie Larousse. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks. If you know of tertiary sources in other west European languages, please point me to them, as I might be able to help. Encyclopedias in French and English are not the only ones with articles about this. Mathglot (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Added GEC, the standard reference in Catalan. This is from the online edition; the multi-volume bound version may be longer, but I don't have access to it now. Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:021120x for adding "Bolshaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya 3rd Ed." above. Mathglot (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the addition of the entry for the Great Soviet Encyclopedia above, just noting that the source given is not actually the encyclopedia, but rather points to this article at the blog "Espresso Stalinist". It's not clear if this entry purports to be a translation of the Russian encyclopedia article, excerpts from it, commentary on it, or some combination. In any case, it's not the encyclopedia article. (Disclosure: I added the ref myself in this edit, copying the entire reference from an earlier one added by 021120x.) Mathglot (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Am waiting for my local public library open back up; when they do, I should have access to three more encyclopedias. Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC) Update: still closed. Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Cherry picking sources
Wikipedia articles constantly make references to sources other than tertiary sources. This is obviously an attempt to cherry pick sources, in this case, a few selected encyclopedias, that only give outline coverage to the events of the war with nothing more than generic coverage to the causes and ideas that give rise to the French Revolution. As outlined, there are more than enough facts to support the idea that the American Revolution, fought by France alongside the Americas, to support the idea that the American Revolution fed right into the French Revolution. Obviously the French had their own reasons for a revolution, and it's very curious that it involved a measure of class warfare, as occurred before and during the American Revolution. To ignore the idea that these two parallel advents had no influence in the thinking behind the French Revolution is naive, to say the least. There are too many facts, supported by many sources, to be ignored here, and we should not limit our sources to a few select encyclopedias. That these encyclopedias don't even mention Jefferson, who authored the French Declaration, or Lafayette, whose writings appeared in French journals in the years leading up to the war, or Franklin, who worked along side French revolutionary writers, etc, clearly indicates that these are simply overly simplistic accounts that leave much to be desired. We can not ignore all the scholarly sources that lend us in depth coverage as to the causes of the French Revolution. This seems like an underhand attempt to push a POV that attempts to sweep many facts under the rug and is obviously a clumsy attempt at censorship. This article employs dozens of secondary and scholarly sources. What is the plan now -- to ignore the lot of them? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think is trying to cherry-pick sources. The problem is that there are so many secondary sources on the French Revolution (it may well be the most written-about event in history) that there will be multiple sources that cover virtually every aspect of the revolution, no matter how minor. That makes assigning weight difficult, because an argument can be made that every aspect of the revolution is important. I think that in order to make progress on determining what to include in the lede, looking at a range of tertiary sources is a good idea, because they have already done the work of condensing the secondary literature into a short summary.
 * I just went to the first respectable-looking online French encyclopedia I could find (from a publisher I know: Larousse), and skimmed through its section on the causes of the revolution: . It does not mention the American Revolution as a cause. I know from my outside reading that the American Revolution played some role in influencing the French Revolution, but it's not a large enough role that it is mentioned by the Encyclopédie Larousse. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * About Jefferson and Lafayette, these are figures who were certainly involved in the French Revolution, but they are far better remembered in the United States than in France. Compared to numerous other participants in the French Revolution, Jefferson and Lafayette are quite minor figures. They're major figures in the American Revolution who each played a minor part in the French Revolution. The Larousse article on the French Revolution (about 15,000 words long) does not mention Jefferson, though it does discuss Lafayette. It does mention (not in the "Origins and Causes" section) that the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was influenced by the Declaration of Independence, but that's the closest that it gets to discussing the influence of the American Revolution on the French Revolution. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are very many secondary sources, and they all can't be pointing in 100 different directions in terms of the established facts and American involvement during the French Revolution. Clearly, the Americans, like Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, etc, though "better remembered" in America, were very involved with affairs in the years leading up to the French Revolution, and to outright ignore it all, and to go so far as to demand what sources we can and can't refer to, would amount to censorship. No one is asking that we commit an entire section, or several paragraphs, covering these events, but on the other hand, we should not overall be ignoring these things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not calling for ignoring the influence of Americans on the French Revolution. I'm just saying that the lede should prioritize the most important issues in the Revolution. Looking at the tertiary sources, I don't think the influence of the American Revolution is important enough to be included in the lede, but it probably could be included somewhere in the body of the article. By the way, about the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen: I don't think it's accurate to say that Jefferson authored the French Declaration. The French Wikipedia article lists Champion de Cicé, Mirabeau and Mounier as the primary authors, though the English Wikipedia article gives a very different list of authors, including Lafayette, which I think again reflects the interest of Americans in Lafayette. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Insert : Have to disagree on that note. We have a basic statement, not exclusive to American influence, now down in the third paragraph of the lede. France came away from the American Revolutionary War, which they helped to win, fully inspired by the idea of revolution, which was soon to follow in France, with the help and inspiration of notable figures from the American Revolution. Out of dozens of statements in the lede, this idea deserves a least one mention in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers, I am not cherry-picking sources, these are well-known, reputable sources (with the possible exception of Salem, which is new to me, but was the first shown to me by my library online section when I searched, but seems okay). I think you may misunderstand the intent of the previous section. It is not to advocate for including tertiary sources to the article. Note that I'm not advocating against it, either; but tertiary sources are generally not so useful in the body of an article, as they provide only a broad-brush sketch of a topic, without getting into an inordinate amount of detail. But that is not the reason for that section. That section is there to try to make some progress in the discussions about the importance of American influence as one of the causes of the French revolution.  In fact, one of the most useful aspects of encyclopedias and other tertiary sources for article development at Wikipedia, is in the way they can help settle questions of WP:DUE WEIGHT, as the section on tertiary sources itself explains.
 * Since the question of how much weight to assign to American influence seems to be the central sticking point on this Talk page, an appeal to tertiary sources and what they have to say on the question, may be the ideal way to try to settle the DUE WEIGHT question.
 * You make a lot of claims to support your view including expressions like "obviously", or "too many facts, supported by many sources, to be ignored", without actually supporting it with sources. On the other hand, you make statements attacking, minimizing, or mocking the opposing view, or the editors who make them, like these:
 * "To ignore the idea that these two parallel advents had no influence in the thinking behind the French Revolution is naive"
 * "This seems like an underhand attempt to push a POV that attempts to sweep many facts under the rug...
 * "...is obviously a clumsy attempt at censorship"
 * without any attempt at supporting those, either. As far as the last two bullets above, please knock it off and assume good faith.
 * Look, I'm not saying you're wrong about the extent of American influence. What I'm saying is, let's do some research, and see if you are right about that or not. The problem is, there are thousands and thousands of books on the topic, and you can probably find some that agree with you. So going to the secondary sources, and finding the ones that agree with you, is not the way to settle this question. In developing an article at Wikipedia, that's simply not how it's done, and is against policy. What we must do, is find out the majority opinion of historians on the topic (and also the significant minority views). Doing a survey of numerous tertiary sources is the ideal way to do this. If you have access to tertiary sources, please contribute to the section above.
 * Finally, I find the title that you chose for this section, ironic in the extreme. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The section title is appropriate. You give us four encyclopedias, claim that they don't mention anything about American influence and then maintain, as your doing again now, that these are the sources we should be using. In any event, it was encouraging to hear you say, at least, that I'm not wrong about the extent of American influence. All I ask is that we give brief commentary about these things in the narrative, where appropriate, per sources. In the American Revolutionary War article, we make it clear that France played an important role in that war -- it would be nice if we saw the same spirit of scholarship exercised here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The section title is not appropriate. Cherry-picking means, searching out a whole bunch of encyclopedias, rejecting all the ones that disagree with me, and only talking about the ones that agree with me. That's not what I did. I'm including every encyclopedia I can find, and am including *all* of them, no matter what they say, agree with me or not.
 * I'm sorry to stomp on your sense of being encouraged, but I did not say you are right about the extent of American influence. What I meant was by saying "you're not wrong" is that I am not biased against your point of view, but you have to prove it. Everything I've seen so far, tends to make me think you are wrong about it, but that remains to be seen. I really wish you would help, by finding additional encyclopedias (or other tertiary sources) and add to this investigation. The section title is ironic, because all indications are that it's not me, who's doing the WP:CHERRYPICKING to support their view.  You said:
 * I understand exactly what you want, and from your point of view, this seems reasonable; after all, how could anyone possibly disagree with the view of American influence on the French Revolution, which does, indeed, have some support in reliable sources? The problem is not that you can't find sources for this; I freely grant that you can. The problem is one which I am now at a complete loss to explain to you as I've tried so many times, and failed; namely, that per WP:DUE WEIGHT you cannot include even a brief commentary about anything that represents only a tiny minority of views. Put another way: yes, there are reliable sources for your view; and no, you cannot include them, unless they pass the bar required by policy.
 * The question before us, then, is this: "does that view represent only a tiny minority, or is it more than that?" That is the whole point of the exercise in the previous section above; to settle that question.  Please help out with your contribution(s) there.
 * By the way, whether France had an important role in the American Revolutionary War or not (they did, of course) has absolutely nothing to do with the question before us here, and it's irrelevant to even mention it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, whether France had an important role in the American Revolutionary War or not (they did, of course) has absolutely nothing to do with the question before us here, and it's irrelevant to even mention it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have not established a "tiny minority view". There are just too many facts involved for the sources to be ignoring them. Along with numerous examples outlined, from French and other non American sources, this has been explained for you already. Btw, mention of France's involvement in the ARW article was in reference to the spirit of scholarship here, which apparently went right over your head, as you continue to drag the discussion down to a contentious level with your cherry picking, empty claims about a "minority view" and your misrepresentation of my attempts at conciliation. At this point it seems rather clear you have no intention of arriving at any sort of compromise. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Info taken from our sources
Listed below are a couple of passages take from François-Alphonse Aulardp's work, a French author, used in the Bibliography of this article.


 * Paine, Thomas, who through his influence on the American Revolution exerted a considerable influence on the genius of the French Revolution. 


 * The bold phrases of Thomas Paine's republican phamphlet, Common Sense, resounded throughout France. Franklin, in a letter, dated May, 1777, speaks of the passionate interest with which American affairs are followed in France. 

Our bibliography is filled with scholarly sources and I'll continue to make reference to them as we go along. There is just too much involvement with the Americas during the French Revolution for us to be ignoring.


 * Jefferson followed the course of the [French] Revolution. He suggested and submitted a proposed charter to Lafayette and a desirable course of procedure for the Assembly of Notables. Lafayette arranged for a meeting of the leaders... 

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like every attempt to impress upon you the meaning and importance of WP:DUEWEIGHT in deciding this question, falls on deaf ears. Let's just keep going on the evaluation based on tertiary sources, and see where that takes us, shall we? A dozen encyclopedias or other tertiary sources would be good. Mathglot (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Several significant involvements of the Americans have been outlined now, taken from non American sources, one of them a French source, and you seek to ignore it all, for reasons I don't quite understand. Your words about Due Weight are attempting to cancel out any influence that the American Revolutionary War, fought by France also, had on the French Revolution. As such it's becoming more difficult to assume good faith at this point as you seek to have us look no further than the few encyclopedias you've selected and seem perfectly willing to ignore all the facts that can be found in the very Bibliography of this article, while compromising and modest approaches have been offered. This is troubling. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I feel like we are going around in circles. To your points:
 * I do not seek to ignore your sources that represent significant viewpoints. So far, you haven't demonstrated they are significant.
 * WP:DUEWEIGHT is Wikipedia policy; pointing it out, is not an attempt to "cancel out" anything.
 * Please assume good faith, as WP:CIVIL requires.
 * I never said you should look no further than the encyclopedias, that is false. What I said was, a survey of tertiary sources is a good way to resolve issues around due weight of certain viewpoints. And it is; it says so, right in the guideline.
 * I have not "selected a few encyclopedias"; I am including every one I can find. The fact that you accuse anyone of cherry-picking is high irony. Please point out any other encyclopedia of your choice, and I will include it if I can access it. But why wait for me? Pick your own encyclopedia, or ten of them; and include those.
 * I am not ignoring any facts in the Bibliography of this article. I'm saying you have to not pick the ones that agrees with your chosen narrative, but take a broader view, and use sources that are typical of the majority and minority viewpoints.
 * This isn't about "winning" or "losing" an argument. I've already told you (twice? three times?) that I don't care how this comes out; if the American Revolution was an influence on the French Revolution, then great! We can write a whole, long, section about it. But if it's only the view of a tiny minority of historians on the topic, then it must be excluded from the article; that's policy. The more you help in the section above, the faster we will figure out which it is. I can't keep up this repetitive discussion; it's going in circles, and not tending towards a resolution. The section above this one, may be different.  Let's hope. Mathglot (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

As was said, I don't wish to commit an entire section, or several paragraphs, covering American influence in the years leading up to the French Revolution. Your contention that only a "tiny minority of historians" cover American involvement remains far from substantiated and tells us you feel that the 'majority' of scholars are rather ignorant or complacent about the significant facts that have been outlined for you, several put forth by French and non American sources. And no, I am not cherry picking and have not asserted that we only consult a narrow range of sources – I have every intention of continuing to explore the sources far and wide, as I have been doing, with success. You assert that, "I never said you should look no further than the encyclopedias, that is false", but you also said, "Please stick to the WP:TERTIARY sources." Okay, which is it?? There is a simple "resolution": Prove that American influence is only represented by a "tiny minority" of scholars, in spite of the facts outlined, above, and below, and when you come to terms with the reality that isn't going to occur, please help us out with a reasonable compromise. France went into debt supporting and fighting for the American Revolution, yet you expect us to believe that upon their return home to their mother country, who had eyes on the American Revolution, from the start, that they had no aspirations of throwing off their own oppressive monarchy, as if doing so was some sort of big fat unrelated coincidence. It would help matters if you didn't carry on as if someone was trying to introduce the 'square wheel' into the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

More sources from our Bibliography

 * "Benjamin Franklin, the American Ambassador, and the very embodiment of the new nation's simple virtues, became the most sought after man in Parisian society. Between 1775 and 1787, the public was deluged with writings on all aspects of America. — <Doyle, 1988, Origins of the French Revolution, p. 94>


 * From Louis Madelin a noted French historian:  — ...the men who were to be the makers of the [French] Revolution were all to come into the world : Brissot in 1754, Lafayette in 1757...   — <Madelin, 1916, p. 14>  —  Madelin refers to Lafayette as one of the leaders of the revolution. "Nothing would be more interesting than to draw up a list of the leaders, from Lafayette to Santerre..."  — Madelin, 1916, p. 28.   —  "The bourgeois militia, which had completed its organization, forthwith laid hands on Lafayette and made him Commandant...”—  Madelin, 1916, p. 82>


 * The Enlightenment movement also had representatives in other countries, including ... Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson in the American colonies. All maintained contacts of the French philopshers.<Anderson, 2007, p. 154>

More sources outlining American involvement forthcoming. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Reflection
In six years of fairly active editing, I've never been involved in either an ANI or a DNR; in the last few weeks I've been tagged on both, as well as being accused of lack of civility, hounding, stalking, character assassination, ad hominem attacks and a few others I can't immediately recall. We should be able to resolve these issues without arousing that level of hostility - and if we can't, maybe we should step out. Which is what I've done, so I'm not going to involve myself in this discussion but I'd like to make a couple of comments FWIW.

(1) Take a look at Wikipedia guidelines on Writing a Good Lead; it provides suggestions for a lot of the ground recycled above. I'm not a procedures guy per se but consciously ignoring guidelines is far more useful than ignorance of them;

(2) We have to accept interpretations of history vary, and be prepared to challenge our own, not just those of others. Dunkirk is viewed very differently in the UK from France; Canadians and Americans see the War of 1812 from almost polar opposites.

(3) Lafayette is a far more substantial figure in American accounts of the French Revolution than he is in France. The idea the debt incurred fighting the American war broke the French economy is not true; in 1788, total French debt was only 55% of GNP, versus 181% in the UK, 62% in the US. (I've updated the Causes section in the article if you're curious). Yes, (parts of) the wording of the Declaration came from Jefferson; Ho Chi Minh's declaration of Vietnamese independence in 1946 was deliberately lifted from the US version and I've yet to see any American claiming credit for that revolution. We need to be careful about overly simplistic causal conclusions;

(4) The Lead summarises the article content; if its not in the content, it can't be in the Lead. So the huge amounts of energy spent on this have arguably started from the wrong place. While this has been going on, I've updated large parts of the article - comments welcome.

(5) Wikipedia stats show between 50-60% of users only ever look at the Lead; so it does need to be 'correct'.

(6) However, we can't just say its not covered in French or English history books, so leave it out. This is English-language Wikipedia; many will be American, who have been taught a specific view. If we say nothing about the connection between the two events, we miss an opportunity; if we recycle popular or minority tropes, we're misleading them (my objection to the wording inserted on 28 May). So we have to say something - I liked the version suggested on 8 October, which has now been replaced, but I can live with the current one. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with you that people need to calm down, and discuss. There is a lot of hostility, name-calling, violation of content policy (especially WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH), violations of behavioral guidelines (notably WP:CIVIL) going on at the article (none of it by you, near as I can tell), and there are circular discussions at the Talk page that either aren't about improving the article, or aren't going anywhere. That all needs to stop, and from a WP:CIVIL people need to take it down a notch&mdash;make that several notches&mdash; and discuss. Failing that, there are other methods of dispute resolution; there is Third opinion, mediation (which I think was tried but rejected), and there is the question of an Rfc. But the name-calling and policy violations have to stop.
 * I could go point-by-point down your list, and agree with them all and tell you why; #1-5 anyway. Your point six was less clear to me. I totally agree with your lead-off quote in #6, as I find en-wiki very provincial in a lot of ways, because of lack of awareness of non-English sources. That's a kind of systemic bias in en-wiki, although an understandable one to some extent. Imho, that bias is showing up at the article recently, and non-en, non-fr viewpoints should certainly be considered. The part of your #6 that confused me, was your third sentence ("If we say nothing..."). First, I assume you are talking about the influence that the American Revolution had on the France Revolution, simply because that's the hot button on this page, but you didn't say so and I didn't want to make assumptions. If that *is* what you meant by it, then I don't know what you mean by "missed opportunity".
 * Secondly you said, "So we have to say something," but without a policy-based justification for it. Why do we have to say something? We should only say something about it in the body of the article, if that view has sufficient weight among historians of the event; if it only represents a tiny minority of historians, then we don't; that's policy.  And I can't stress your #4 enough; if it's not in the body, then it can't be mentioned in the lead; that's clear, and I agree with you that much of the discussion on this page focusing on whether it should be in the *lead* are misguided, and should have been concentrating first on whether it belongs in the body. Btw, just because I don't understand something, you don't "owe" me an explanation; I just wanted to indicate what I thought maybe wasn't clear. Hang in there, you're doing good. Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, while the discussion has sometimes taken on a less than friendly tone, I haven't seen any name calling, or anything like that around here, so let's not create a problem in an area where none exists. I also agree with most of what  says, especially about his exception to the claim that something can not be stated simply because some of the sources don't mention it. When we have a wide variety of sources it is quite normal for some to concentrate in areas where others do not, and in the process, many a topic is not covered in a given source. This is especially true with summary accounts found in encyclopedias, btw.  When the sources vary then we must consider the facts in question further, rather than pointing at what sources don't mention this or that to determine historical weight. When it comes to the years leading up to the French Revolution, there are simply too many facts involving the Americans to be ignored -- facts that even French and other non America sources have covered.  The attempt to block such coverage, with claims of a "tiny minority" covering American involvement, while reasonable compromises are snuffed, along with the effort to have us only consult a small selection of encyclopedias, apart from being less than sincere, has greatly turned the discussion into a less than friendly affair. The way around this is to not ignore points made in a discussion and strike a reasonable compromise, as none of us own this article. As was said, no one wants to add another section or large amounts of text to cover American involvements – but to block any such coverage would amount to nothing less than POV pushing and censorship, which, needless to say, will only make for continued heated and dragged out discussions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anyone here is being insincere. Statements to the contrary are not helpful. About the meat of the issue, the reason why some of us are advocating looking at encyclopedias (tertiary sources) is because there are too many secondary sources to get an easy overview of what scholars consider the most important causes of the revolution. If you think we're cherry-picking encyclopedias, then suggest which other encyclopedias we should consult. For my part, I did not cherry-pick. I went to the first online French encyclopedia whose publisher (Larousse) I recognized, and summarized what it said the major causes of the revolution are. It does not mention the influence of the American Revolution. That does not mean that the American Revolution had no influence (and I'm aware that there was some influence). It simply means that the compilers of the Encyclopédie Larousse did not view that influence as a great enough factor, compared to all the other factors, to include in their article. In the end, this is not a question of whether or not there was any influence. It's just a question of how much of a factor the American revolution was, in comparison with other factors (i.e., WP:DUE weight). -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was told that no one had said to "look no further than the encyclopedias...", but was also told, "Please stick to the WP:TERTIARY sources". We were also told that only a "tiny minority" of historians cover any American involvement, which remains far from substantiated, not even a general explanation, which flies in the face of all the sources presented here. If anything it's not helpful if contradictory and unsubstantiated statements made to other editors on the Talk page. Yes, I find that a bit less than sincere, and putting it in those words was actually being polite - since you've brought this up. Expecting editors to ignore the dozens of scholars who have authored their own works is not how Wikipedia works. The issue with only consulting encyclopedias, on a specific topic, has been well addressed, and imo, is an unfair attempt to block any coverage of all the events, facts, surrounding American involvement leading up to the French Revolution. There are many such events, as has been outlined, and again, often covered by French and other non American sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works on the basis of weight. There are probably tens of thousands of scholarly works on the French Revolution. Pointing to "dozens of scholars" means nothing unless you can put those dozens of scholars in the context of the wider scholarship. That's why we're turning to tertiary sources to assess weight. You keep insisting that we listen to the scholars you've raised, but you keep ignoring the basic issue of weight. We're not going to make any progress this way. Instead of accusing us of insincerity, suggest other tertiary sources that we should consult. I came into this without a firm position (and I still don't have a firm position). I know that the American Revolution had some influence on the French Revolution, but I don't know if that influence is important enough to discuss in the lede. Based on the tertiary sources we've evaluated so far, I'm leaning towards not mentioning the American Revolution in the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No one has covered "tens of thousands" of scholarly works around here to determine weight, including yourself and Mathglot, who has made the unfounded claim that only a "tiny "minority" have covered the events in question, so it's a bit unfair to expect me to do so. As explained, sources vary in their coverage, and many often leave certain events out. Many of the sources on the French Revolution only cover the battles, others concentrate on politics, and such. Given the facts involved with American involvement and the sources covering them, we have ample reason to cover these events in brief, if for anything, for historical context. As I assume you know, the events leading up to any major event are often covered in any comprehensive work on that subject. Are you assuming that Jefferson's and Franklin's involvement in drafting the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, their involvement, along with Lafayette, in organizing the Assembly of Notables, and that the writings of Lafayette, Franklin and Jefferson which were widely covered in most French journals before the revolution, are insignificant, not worthy of even a mention? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that secondary sources focus on different aspects of the revolution is precisely why we need to look at tertiary sources to judge weight. I have no doubt that you can find secondary sources, from among the countless sources on the French Revolution, that discuss the American connection. That doesn't tell me anything about weight, though. I'm not assuming anything about Jefferson, Franklin and Lafayette's importance. I'm looking at what tertiary sources say. If you can show that tertiary sources generally place great emphasis on the influence of the American Revolution, then you'll convince me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That argument, such that it is, can be used in regards to the coverage of any topic. As such, we look to all the sources that cover the events in question. As you may have noticed below, User has provided us with a tertiary source, if that is really what you need all by itself to justify the coverage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For some subjects, it's possible to get a relatively complete overview of the secondary sources. For others, like the French Revolution, that's absolutely impossible unless it's your day job for a few decades, so we have to turn to tertiary sources to help assess weight.
 * Back when we had only evaluated 8 encyclopedias, you accused us of cherry-picking. Now that one encyclopedia has been found that mentions the American Revolution, you're suddenly in favor of using that one encyclopedia to assess weight. You're cherry-picking, which is exactly what you accused me and of doing before. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

goalpost

 * No, what is being done now and has been done throughout the discussion is moving the goal posts. The original objection was that no sources supported American influence, then not enough sources, then no reliable sources, then not enough reliable sources, then not enough non-American reliable sources, then we were demanded to provide tertiary sources. Any individual with a neutral and objective viewpoint can see that there is no legitimate reason to censor any and all mention of American influence from this article. Even Schama explicitly supports American inspiration. 021120x (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * 021120 — Yes indeed, this hits the nail square on the head. Unfortunately this is an all too common affair on Talk pages among some editors who just keep, as you say, moving the goal post, after one has addressed one contention after another. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thucydides411 — The contention over cherry picking was made in response to the idea that we should only use tertiary sources. Now that we've found one that clearly defines American involvement you don't seem very interested. This discussion has become very argumentative.  The facts speak for themselves, and we have more than enough sources to back them up. At this point we don't need any mathematical estimations about the number of sources out there, either way. I think we've heard enough empty claims about a "tiny minority", demands for tertiary sources only, searching through "tens of thousands" of sources, etc, etc.  Enough.   Now we need to concentrate on what statements we need to include in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm basing my judgment on tertiary sources, just as I said before. Right now, there are 8 that don't mention American influence at all, and one that does. That's what determines my view. If you want to convince me, then instead of questioning my motives, look for additional tertiary sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, No one has proposed that we should only use tertiary sources in the article, and you know that. The section on assessment of tertiary sources above is there for one reason, and one reason only: to answer the question, how significant is the view that the American Revolution was one of the causes of the French Revolution: is it the majority view? Is it the view of a significant minority of historians?  Or, is it the view of only a tiny minority of historians? The result of that investigation will inform how we shall determine treatment in the "Causes" section in the body of the article, after which the Lead can summarize the most important points. Your comment about cherry-picking sources turns logic on its head, and is full of irony, for two reasons: first, in the assessment section, we are trying to include every possible reliable encyclopedia; that is the very antithesis of cherry-picking. Secondly, it's ironic to hear accusations of cherry-picking coming from you, as you have been cherry-picking secondary sources repeatedly to support your PoV about causes of the Revoution, while ignoring due weight, and now, oh Irony! you seize upon one tertiary source out of eight in order to "prove your point".  So, remind me again, who is doing the cherry-picking here? Finally, this comment of yours is a rejection of Wikipedia content policy:
 * Nonsense. On this Talk page, you have repeatedly rejected Wikipedia's core policy of neutral point of view (pillar #2 of the five pillars) in its expression as WP:DUEWEIGHT, and I suggest that you stop. Perhaps there are policy-compliant arguments that support your point of view that American involvement was a significant cause of the French Revolution, and if so, I suggest you concentrate on those. Putting all your eggs in the basket of "I don't agree with due weight policy" will get you nowhere fast, and simply prolongs this discussion needlessly; arguing for a particular view of article content based on a rejection of Wikipedia policy is a waste of your time, and everybody else's. It becomes an intractable obstruction to this entire discussion. Mathglot (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. On this Talk page, you have repeatedly rejected Wikipedia's core policy of neutral point of view (pillar #2 of the five pillars) in its expression as WP:DUEWEIGHT, and I suggest that you stop. Perhaps there are policy-compliant arguments that support your point of view that American involvement was a significant cause of the French Revolution, and if so, I suggest you concentrate on those. Putting all your eggs in the basket of "I don't agree with due weight policy" will get you nowhere fast, and simply prolongs this discussion needlessly; arguing for a particular view of article content based on a rejection of Wikipedia policy is a waste of your time, and everybody else's. It becomes an intractable obstruction to this entire discussion. Mathglot (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Re moving goalposts; I totally agree that's happened. Let me quote 021120x's comment above; Any individual with a neutral and objective viewpoint can see that there is no legitimate reason to censor any and all mention of American influence from this article.

Here is the edit I produced on 15 September; "Comparisons to the earlier American Revolution were first made in 1800 by conservative reactionary Friedrich von Gentz. The 1789 National Assembly was initially dominated by aristocrats like Lafayette, who idealised the American Patriot cause; the Declaration of the Rights of Man was based on the US Declaration of Independence. However, since the causes of the French Revolution were very different, the solutions proposed became far more radical, and the nobility quickly superseded."

On 8 October, I produced the current wording, based on input from two other editors; "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. 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. However, the French quickly discarded the American Revolution as a reference point, and they are generally viewed as distinct events, with different causes."

Can anyone tell me how either of these fail to comply with the statement above? Despite that, I was hit with an ANI on 12 October, followed by a DNR; for anyone unfamiliar with Franz Kafka, I suggest reading the ANI thread.

We all need to take responsibility, rather than pointing fingers at others, or filing ANIs if we don't get our own way. This whole thing has consumed masses of energy from over 10 editors, on a minor topic. That's what I resent - and while the apparent abdication of any sense of personal liability for this maelstrom of accusations doesn't surprise me, it does annoy me. If that leads to another ANI, then so be it. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Robinvp11, yes, your lede edit, approved by two other editors, is more than appropriate, and just for the record, has the support from at least two more editors here. Indeed the finger-pointing and recitals about policies and guidelines serves nothing but an obfuscation.

Mayhglot, this is at least the third time I've had to deal with your finger-pointing. Yes, I made issue with your cherry picking because you came right out and said, "please stick to tertiary sources". Now you are changing that position, which is fine. However, I am not the one who is still trying to prevent a couple of brief comments, in a compromising capacity, about American involvement, nor have I ever attempted to limit the selection of our sources, as you have, and another editor is attempting to do. Several notable French authors, and other non American historians, have covered the events in question, so it's not as if I'm searching only for an American POV. Anyone of these French authors carries more weight than all these generic encyclopedia articles combined, on notability and reputation alone. We have dozens of sources in our Bibliography, and a good number of them (and I haven't checked them all yet) cover American involvements, i.e.significant events that led up to the French Revolution. That you seem to think the influence of major ARW figures like Franklin, Jefferson, Lafayette, Paine and others don't amount to anything worth mentioning is a bit one sided, and is indeed a NPOV issue, esp when you consider their involvements, per the French Declaration', the formation of the Assembly of Notables, organization and command of the French militia, etc  Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My words are there for anyone to read, and I've changed nothing. I never said I don't think the influence of major ARW figures should be covered, that's your game-playing and putting words in people's mouths. You appear to understand neither cherry-picking, which you are massively guilty of and I am not, nor do you understand WP:DUEWEIGHT which I've been explaining probably over a dozen times by now, but I'm done with trying to explain it to you. Time to let other people get involved, and have their say. This is going nowhere. Mathglot (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Just a reminder: WP:Reliable Sources : "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered."   Even if the topic of American involvement and influence was a "minority view", which has not been substantiated, it still has to be covered in proportion. Given all the events involving the Americans leading up to the French Revolution it would be highly inappropriate to ignore these things, given all the sources that have covered them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I just wanted to take the opportunity to say that I agree with the central point of what you have posted here: that is exactly right; all majority and significant minority views need to be covered in the article. I can't comment yet on the second half of what you wrote, since we haven't yet established whether "all the events involving the Americans leading up to the French Revolution" belongs to the "significant minority" bucket or not. We are attempting to do that here, and hopefully that will clarify the situation wrt majority/minority views on the topic.  You can help get us there, by adding to the "#Survey" section of that discussion.  Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mathglot, thanks for your words of moderation. As I said, we only need to make a few brief comments about American involvement as appropriate in the narrative. Certainly it was a factor during the years leading up to the French Revolution, esp when you consider that a number of major players in the American Revolution took part in drafting the French Declaration of Rights, organizing its National Assembly, while their writings were covered in French journals across France. The weight of this should be self evident, and we have sources, several of them by noted French historians, who support these things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pertinent details can be included on this page, and a more comprehensive coverage can be written on the American Revolution page. I don't see any reason to prolong this discussion. 021120x (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In saying "American involvement", I'm not sure what you mean by it. If you're talking about causes of the French Revolution, then no: the weight is not self-evident, which is why this is a contentious issue and needs evaluation to ensure it's of due weight. If you're not talking about causes, but any kind of American connection at all, then it's uncontroversial that the Declaration of the Rights of Man had American involvement (Jefferson).  But the Declaration is not one of the causes, but a consequence of the French Revolution and the Enlightenment philosophy that contributed to it. Had there been no French Revolution, anyone printing and publishing such a Declaration would have had their head cut off. Mathglot (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We've made it rather plain and are referring to influence. The causes, i.e.the injustices, etc,  were already in place.  This article primarily lends itself to the causes, so there is no neutrality or pov issue by mentioning the roles the Americans played. The French revolutionaries worked hand in hand with people like Franklin, Jefferson, Lafayette, Paine, whose thinking and writings were embraced by the French people and were published in nearly all French Journals across France. That you seem to think this doesn't even merit a few brief comments clearly tells us that we have NPOV issues to deal with, esp since no one has made the case about a "tiny minority" of sources that cover these things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources, continued
As Encyclopedia sources go, User has provided us with an excellent one, which can be viewed here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are a couple of more insightful statements from noted French historian François Furet's 1970 work, French Revolution, that should leave no doubt as to the influence the American Revolution had on the soon to arrive French Revolution:


 * "Having settled the problem of feudalism, the Assembly now resumed the debate begun in July on a Declaration of the Rights of man and the citizen. The American Declaration of Rights of 1776 was in everyone's mind."<Furet, François, pp. 87-88>


 * "The liberal nobility had an important part to play in the new era. For anyone who kept a diary of the times the outstanding personality of 1790 must surely have been LaFayette, the 'Hero of Two Worlds', the noble who had fought in the American War of Independence and who in 1788 demanded that a National Assembly be convened; the man who was commander in Chief of the National Guard and the idol of crowds."<Furet, François, p. 109>   -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm missing something; what's wrong with the current (sourced) wording? Robinvp11 (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Call for dispute resolution
Afaic, the repetitive nature of discussions on this Talk page amply demonstrates that this dispute about the causes of the French Revolution and to what extent the American Revolution was a contributory factor is going around in circles. I'm not sure what is to be gained by continuing to discuss here, and I'm open to other alternatives. WP:3O is one of them, but I'm not sure if that would be effective. I'm aware that someone brought that to WP:DRN before, and that it apparently was rejected; I don't know the details. Maybe this is the time to bring it to DRN again. What does anyone else think about this? Mathglot (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * We've stated multiple times that this is not about the causes of the French Revolution, yet you've suddenly come back to this. Why? The very title of the thread is "American Influence on the French Revolution". It's been established that the French drew influence from the Americans. No one is disputing that. There is literally nothing to base further discussion on, and no reason to prolong this. 021120x (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * 021120x, First, because that's what the Rfc question was about, that was the origin of all this Sturm und Drang. Second, because editors, including you, keep inserting content into the article that is related to that very topic, even while it is under discussion here. For example, this edit of yours reinserted material before there was resolution of the points under discussion.  Accordingly, I will be moving, rewriting, or reverting it in a day or two, if no one else modifies it first to be policy-compliant, which it currently isn't per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. I mentioned that edit of yours on your Talk page, but I see that it's gone now. To make it easier for you to report me to the administration if  you still wish to, you can go here: WP:ANI, or you can just click here to open a new topic. Be sure to read the instructions in the blue box at the top first.
 * But I'll take your response here, as a vote for "no, we shouldn't take this to DRN". Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You might want to read this WP:OWN. Second, a user is in no place to suddenly redefine a discussion (which they were not even originally a part of), that has explicitly been on inspiration and influence, just as it is approaching its conclusion. A consensus was already established on October 12 for the paragraph under discussion (with the caveat that more details might be added), which you first removed and then entirely changed of your own accord, completely disregarding both what Robinvp11 had already written or any of what was being discussed on the page. We are mostly finished here, and you have presented no substantive reason to continue this discussion, nor any justification for disregarding the arduous outcome. 021120x (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow, you can't even take a neutral request for dispute resolution and respond to it, without turning it into a battleground. A local consensus does not trump Wikipedia policies that are approved by community discussion. You may make the claim about "suddenly redefining" the discussion, and that it has been "explicitly been on inspiration and influence" but you are the one attempting to redefine it. The Rfc question (bold in the original) says:
 * and "Claim 1" in the Rfc attempting to indicate what the pro position was, says this (bold in the original):
 * so, who is redefining this discussion again? The paragraph in the lead that was removed was a violation of both WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and of WP:DUEWEIGHT, and did not belong in the article per policy.
 * Your comments "introducing me" to WP:OWN are laughable. I'm a long standing user with years of experience and pretty fair knowledge of policy and guidelines. You are a fairly new user, with 334 total edits, and you just learned about WP:OWN yesterday, when I warned you about "Proper use of Edit summary and ownership behavior at French Revolution" in this edit on your user talk page, which you deleted as fast as you could. You would be well-advised to read and understand it instead of removing it.  But go ahead: teach me about "WP:OWN" and other Wikipedia policies. I can't wait. Mathglot (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The paragraph did not belong in the article? It was already in the article, and had been there for who knows how long. The discussion was focused on two comments that occurred in the paragraph, not the paragraph itself. And, if you truly had an honest concern about the opening of the article following the body, the rather simple solution would be to add the relevant details in the body, which we already discussed doing. 021120x (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Be my guest; that would at least be a start. At least it wouldn't be in violation of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY anymore. We can deal with whether it's compliant WP:DUEWEIGHT, later on. Oh, and by the way, in regards to this comment:
 * Please assume good faith, and do not ever cast another aspersion about my motivations here, or anywhere on Wikipedia. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and to your question about how long it was in the article when I removed it: 5 days. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If the discussion had been going on for almost 1.5 months before you arrived, please share what groundbreaking mathematics were used to determine that it had only existed in the article for five days. You deleted the most recent version of the paragraph that had been reached through a consensus. 021120x (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No groundbreaking mathematics, just simple revision history search.
 * Added: 10:53, October 11, 2020
 * Deleted: 23:02, October 16, 2020.
 * Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Added: 10:53, October 11, 2020
 * Deleted: 23:02, October 16, 2020.
 * Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, his comments about ownership are rather called for, regardless if he just learned about the idea five minutes ago. While you're having your laugh and making fun about his edit-count, you might want to consider some of your own advice and refrain from the recitals about NPOV, Due-Weight, as you are the one who is trying to stone wall any coverage of American influence in spite of the glaring facts outlined here in Talk, and in the face of numerous historians who support these things, including  Louis Madelin,  François Furet,  François-Alphonse Aulard.  Any one of these French historians carries more weight than all your carefully selected generic encyclopedia articles can ever hope to.  You have yet to make the case about a "tiny minority", and I'm sorry to say, your words about neutrality, considering your rigid stance against coverage of American involvement, is really the only thing "laughable" around here, sadly. If you want to support an idea, you need to give us something more than what a few  source didn't say.  We have done the opposite and have provided numerous examples, from widely noted historians, about things they did say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need for dispute resolution if all you're going to do is ignore all the examples and sources surrounding American influences before the French Revolution. As pointed out, the goal-post keeps being pushed back, every time an issue is addressed.  First there was a contention that "zero" sources supported any American influence.  When that was refuted the contention was that only a "tiny minority" supported the idea, which was never substantiated in the least. Then there was the expectation that we must first consult "tens of thousands" of sources, a months-long task that hasn't been followed by anyone around here. Then along came the expectation that we consult only Tertiary sources, while we are expected to ignore the many dozens of sources in our Bibliography, and elsewhere. Since then we have provided, and continue to provide, many notable sources that support the idea, with examples, about an American influence, and here you are, still talking. It seems you have made it rather clear that you are completely closed to the idea of any sort of coverage about an American influence in the years leading up to the French Revolution, in spite of the glaring facts and many sources, and are ready to go around in the same circle in a different forum as a means of stalling the progress of this article.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

<div style="border:thin solid red;background-color:#DFDFDF; margin-left:3em; color:transparent; text-shadow: 0 0 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.3); margin-top:2em; padding:0 1em 1em 1em">
 * <span style="color:0; text-shadow: 0 0 0 rgba(0,0,0,1)">My comment of 06:23, 19 October 2020 was clobbered by multiple interpolations by Gwillhickers in violation of WP:TPO and is now a mess of who-said-what insertions. You can read my original text after this boxed mass of confusion. 
 * Gwillhickers, here we go, round and round in circles again. You said
 * No, I'm perfectly willing for coverage about American influence to be added to the article. In the area of the Declaration of the Rights Of Man it's clear, and tertiary sources all cover that fact. In other areas, it's very unclear. As I've said before (twice? four times? more?) I have no dog in this race, and I don't care which way this comes out; totally influenced by America&mdash;great! Medium influence by America?&mdash;great! Little or no influence by America?&mdash;great!  I'm good with all of them.  What I'm not good with, is POV-pushing and cherry-picking, which is what is going on here; not necessarily intentionally, but it is happening, due to a failure to pay appropriate attention to views of historians in proportion to their prevalence in the literature.
 * You either don't understand WP:DUEWEIGHT, or you do, and refuse to acknowledge it. Since I've quoted from it and explained it probably half a dozen times on this page, and you're obviously a smart guy, I have to assume it's the latter. In any case, there's no need to believe my explanations about it; you can completely ignore what I said about WP:DUE, and just go follow the link and read it yourself. What is NOT going to happen at this article, is that we're going to stuff into the article content that gives a skewed view of what historians actually say about the topic.
 * You either don't understand WP:DUEWEIGHT, or you do, and refuse to acknowledge it. Since I've quoted from it and explained it probably half a dozen times on this page, and you're obviously a smart guy, I have to assume it's the latter. In any case, there's no need to believe my explanations about it; you can completely ignore what I said about WP:DUE, and just go follow the link and read it yourself. What is NOT going to happen at this article, is that we're going to stuff into the article content that gives a skewed view of what historians actually say about the topic.
 * You either don't understand WP:DUEWEIGHT, or you do, and refuse to acknowledge it. Since I've quoted from it and explained it probably half a dozen times on this page, and you're obviously a smart guy, I have to assume it's the latter. In any case, there's no need to believe my explanations about it; you can completely ignore what I said about WP:DUE, and just go follow the link and read it yourself. What is NOT going to happen at this article, is that we're going to stuff into the article content that gives a skewed view of what historians actually say about the topic.


 * We are only going by the established facts as they are presented in reliable sources. Jefferson and the declaration, Lafayette's involvement in the Assembly of Notables, etc, are established facts. Benjamin Franklin's involvement with French revolutionary thinkers is widely noted. That is not a "skewed view", so now you can put the "skewed view" idea on the shelf next to your "tiny minority" claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've explained this also, and linked WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN for you, and explained that I don't have to make a case for a tiny minority. You (or someone that agrees with you) have to make a case for inclusion. That is policy. We've gone over and over this, and your inability or refusal to accept the ONUS, and to repeatedly ask me to prove a negative is an unproductive waste of time for all concerned.
 * I've explained this also, and linked WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN for you, and explained that I don't have to make a case for a tiny minority. You (or someone that agrees with you) have to make a case for inclusion. That is policy. We've gone over and over this, and your inability or refusal to accept the ONUS, and to repeatedly ask me to prove a negative is an unproductive waste of time for all concerned.


 * If you are going to assert a negative, you have to prove it. Sorry, but your belabored double talk is becoming something of a blur. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I really wish you'd assume good faith. I have no objection whatever, rigid or otherwise, to including coverage of American involvement, or influence, or whatever word you want to call it, as long as it is policy-compliant. My objection, which you seem not to get, is that given the data we have currently on the preponderance of sources about this, it hasn't been proven that such theories (with a couple of exceptions like the obvious influence on the Decl. of R.o.M.) has any support among historians beyond a tiny minority. If you show to me that some facet of American involvement represents a significant minority of views, I'll drop my objection immediately, and add it to the article myself. I don't understand why you don't get this, as I've stated it over and over.
 * I really wish you'd assume good faith. I have no objection whatever, rigid or otherwise, to including coverage of American involvement, or influence, or whatever word you want to call it, as long as it is policy-compliant. My objection, which you seem not to get, is that given the data we have currently on the preponderance of sources about this, it hasn't been proven that such theories (with a couple of exceptions like the obvious influence on the Decl. of R.o.M.) has any support among historians beyond a tiny minority. If you show to me that some facet of American involvement represents a significant minority of views, I'll drop my objection immediately, and add it to the article myself. I don't understand why you don't get this, as I've stated it over and over.


 * We have produced many notable sources that support the ideas of American involvement and influence -- many of them by noted French historians. I don't have to disprove your unproven claim about a "tiny minority". All that need be done is to provide enough reliable sources that support the idea. Your speculative assertion of a "tiny minority" is just empty talk. I don't have to disprove your unsupported claim, even though I have, with a variety of sources at this point. Sorry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a request to prove a negative.  Sorry, can't do it. But see ONUS and BURDEN, mentioned above.
 * Sounds like a request to prove a negative.  Sorry, can't do it. But see ONUS and BURDEN, mentioned above.


 * If you make any sort of assertion, positive or negative, the onus on you is to prove it. Bering in mind that you originally asserted that "zero" sources supported any American influence, you have yet to substantiate that only a "tiny minority" of sources cover the American involvement. Meanwhile, we've produced many. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Nobody ever said this, so stop twisting my words. You know perfectly well what we are doing with the tertiary sources; it's explained both in the #Assessment of views on American influence section above, as well as at WP:TERTIARY. The article will end up containing citations to reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources, not tertiary ones. That is not the point of looking for tertiary sources, and you know that, so stop pretending you don't. The use of tertiary sources will inform our assessment of the breakdown of majority, minority, and tiny-minority views on the topic, which will in turn guide us in what proportion of secondary sources should be used as citations in the article in support of differing views on the same issue. The tertiary sources are not intended for the article, and never were (although there is not a prohibition on using them, they can be useful for broad-brush sketches of complex topics). You know this.
 * I hope to get more responses to the question of DR, to see if there is interest in mediation (which I know was tried before) as part of the dispute resolution for sticking points on this page. If there's no interest in that, we'll have to try something else, but I'd still like to hear more opinions. It sounds like both you, Gwillhickers, and 021120x, both vote no. Since I vote yes, that makes it 1 yes, and 2 no's as we stand right now.  I hope that will change; let's see if it does. Mathglot (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope to get more responses to the question of DR, to see if there is interest in mediation (which I know was tried before) as part of the dispute resolution for sticking points on this page. If there's no interest in that, we'll have to try something else, but I'd still like to hear more opinions. It sounds like both you, Gwillhickers, and 021120x, both vote no. Since I vote yes, that makes it 1 yes, and 2 no's as we stand right now.  I hope that will change; let's see if it does. Mathglot (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)



-
 * Gwillhickers, here we go, round and round in circles again. You said
 * No, I'm perfectly willing for coverage about American influence to be added to the article. In the area of the Declaration of the Rights Of Man it's clear, and tertiary sources all cover that fact. In other areas, it's very unclear. As I've said before (twice? four times? more?) I have no dog in this race, and I don't care which way this comes out; totally influenced by America&mdash;great! Medium influence by America?&mdash;great! Little or no influence by America?&mdash;great!  I'm good with all of them.  What I'm not good with, is POV-pushing and cherry-picking, which is what is going on here; not necessarily intentionally, but it is happening, due to a failure to pay appropriate attention to views of historians in proportion to their prevalence in the literature.
 * You either don't understand WP:DUEWEIGHT, or you do, and refuse to acknowledge it. Since I've quoted from it and explained it probably half a dozen times on this page, and you're obviously a smart guy, I have to assume it's the latter. In any case, there's no need to believe my explanations about it; you can completely ignore what I said about WP:DUE, and just go follow the link and read it yourself. What is NOT going to happen at this article, is that we're going to stuff into the article content that gives a skewed view of what historians actually say about the topic.
 * I've explained this also, and linked WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN for you, and explained that I don't have to make a case for a tiny minority. You (or someone that agrees with you) have to make a case for inclusion. That is policy. We've gone over and over this, and your inability or refusal to accept the ONUS, and to repeatedly ask me to prove a negative is an unproductive waste of time for all concerned.
 * I really wish you'd assume good faith. I have no objection whatever, rigid or otherwise, to including coverage of American involvement, or influence, or whatever word you want to call it, as long as it is policy-compliant. My objection, which you seem not to get, is that given the data we have currently on the preponderance of sources about this, it hasn't been proven that such theories (with a couple of exceptions like the obvious influence on the Decl. of R.o.M.) has any support among historians beyond a tiny minority. If you show to me that some facet of American involvement represents a significant minority of views, I'll drop my objection immediately, and add it to the article myself. I don't understand why you don't get this, as I've stated it over and over.
 * Sounds like a request to prove a negative.  Sorry, can't do it. But see ONUS and BURDEN, mentioned above.
 * Nobody ever said this, so stop twisting my words. You know perfectly well what we are doing with the tertiary sources; it's explained both in the #Assessment of views on American influence section above, as well as at WP:TERTIARY. The article will end up containing citations to reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources, not tertiary ones. That is not the point of looking for tertiary sources, and you know that, so stop pretending you don't. The use of tertiary sources will inform our assessment of the breakdown of majority, minority, and tiny-minority views on the topic, which will in turn guide us in what proportion of secondary sources should be used as citations in the article in support of differing views on the same issue. The tertiary sources are not intended for the article, and never were (although there is not a prohibition on using them, they can be useful for broad-brush sketches of complex topics). You know this.
 * I hope to get more responses to the question of DR, to see if there is interest in mediation (which I know was tried before) as part of the dispute resolution for sticking points on this page. If there's no interest in that, we'll have to try something else, but I'd still like to hear more opinions. It sounds like both you, Gwillhickers, and 021120x, both vote no. Since I vote yes, that makes it 1 yes, and 2 no's as we stand right now.  I hope that will change; let's see if it does. Mathglot (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I really wish you'd assume good faith. I have no objection whatever, rigid or otherwise, to including coverage of American involvement, or influence, or whatever word you want to call it, as long as it is policy-compliant. My objection, which you seem not to get, is that given the data we have currently on the preponderance of sources about this, it hasn't been proven that such theories (with a couple of exceptions like the obvious influence on the Decl. of R.o.M.) has any support among historians beyond a tiny minority. If you show to me that some facet of American involvement represents a significant minority of views, I'll drop my objection immediately, and add it to the article myself. I don't understand why you don't get this, as I've stated it over and over.
 * Sounds like a request to prove a negative.  Sorry, can't do it. But see ONUS and BURDEN, mentioned above.
 * Nobody ever said this, so stop twisting my words. You know perfectly well what we are doing with the tertiary sources; it's explained both in the #Assessment of views on American influence section above, as well as at WP:TERTIARY. The article will end up containing citations to reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources, not tertiary ones. That is not the point of looking for tertiary sources, and you know that, so stop pretending you don't. The use of tertiary sources will inform our assessment of the breakdown of majority, minority, and tiny-minority views on the topic, which will in turn guide us in what proportion of secondary sources should be used as citations in the article in support of differing views on the same issue. The tertiary sources are not intended for the article, and never were (although there is not a prohibition on using them, they can be useful for broad-brush sketches of complex topics). You know this.
 * I hope to get more responses to the question of DR, to see if there is interest in mediation (which I know was tried before) as part of the dispute resolution for sticking points on this page. If there's no interest in that, we'll have to try something else, but I'd still like to hear more opinions. It sounds like both you, Gwillhickers, and 021120x, both vote no. Since I vote yes, that makes it 1 yes, and 2 no's as we stand right now.  I hope that will change; let's see if it does. Mathglot (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody ever said this, so stop twisting my words. You know perfectly well what we are doing with the tertiary sources; it's explained both in the #Assessment of views on American influence section above, as well as at WP:TERTIARY. The article will end up containing citations to reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources, not tertiary ones. That is not the point of looking for tertiary sources, and you know that, so stop pretending you don't. The use of tertiary sources will inform our assessment of the breakdown of majority, minority, and tiny-minority views on the topic, which will in turn guide us in what proportion of secondary sources should be used as citations in the article in support of differing views on the same issue. The tertiary sources are not intended for the article, and never were (although there is not a prohibition on using them, they can be useful for broad-brush sketches of complex topics). You know this.
 * I hope to get more responses to the question of DR, to see if there is interest in mediation (which I know was tried before) as part of the dispute resolution for sticking points on this page. If there's no interest in that, we'll have to try something else, but I'd still like to hear more opinions. It sounds like both you, Gwillhickers, and 021120x, both vote no. Since I vote yes, that makes it 1 yes, and 2 no's as we stand right now.  I hope that will change; let's see if it does. Mathglot (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 *  readded by Mathglot (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

-
 * Nonsense. When the secondary sources started to appear in the discussion your comment was "Please stick to the WP:TERTIARY sources". Are these not your words? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I seem to have missed this comment of yours:
 * Oh, silly me; I probably forgot to mention that I'm not actually closed to that idea, and I should have mentioned that the core Wikipedia principle of WP:DUEWEIGHT actually governs the inclusion of such topics. Guess I'm just forgetful, you know? Glad we could clear that up. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, silly me; I probably forgot to mention that I'm not actually closed to that idea, and I should have mentioned that the core Wikipedia principle of WP:DUEWEIGHT actually governs the inclusion of such topics. Guess I'm just forgetful, you know? Glad we could clear that up. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That's what you say, but your unsubstantiated arguments, such that they are, tell us quite a different story. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Back to the sources
Here is yet another scholarly source that helps to define an American influence before the French Revolution.


 * "By 1783, there were in circulation two translations of the American state constitutions with their bills of rights which served as models for the French Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789. Moreover, the [American] Revolution had fired the imagination of, and made its imprint on, French thinkers." <Berstine, Jefferson and the French Revolution, p. 123> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "Jefferson was neither the cause nor the catalyst for the eruption of events in France, but his words and actions provided considerable influence in the shaping of that process, in ways both direct and indirect. Jefferson's writings prior to and during the American movement, particularly the Declaration of Independence, were widely known in France and inspirational to significant portions of the French populace". <Foreign Influence: Thomas Jefferson and the Thinkers of the French Revolutionary Era, James Hershman, Ph.D., Georgetown University>


 * Gwillhickers, I've told you before, numerous times, I grant you all your sources are valid (without even looking at them; I trust you). But it's pointless to list these sources here, and you know why, because we've gone through this before (x number of times). As the French Revolution is one of the most studied events in all of world history, there are countless books and articles about it from every conceivable point of view. By looking for them, it's always possible to find something that supports you. But&mdash;and I guess this is the part you don't get&mdash;listing half a dozen independent, reliable, secondary sources here just isn't enough; we need to establish the broad sweep of historical opinion on this topic.  In any case, you don't need more sources for the D of R of M, it's uncontroversial. Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually we've been through this -- the idea that we must search through "ten thousand sources" to determine validity and weight – an expectation I'm sure you've never held yourself to. You're implying that since there are 'ten thousand' sources out there that there must be ten thousand points of view, which more than suggests that historians overall are a bunch of idiots who live in a vacuum and all have their singular and narrow point of view, which is nonsense. I'm not searching for points of view in particular, I'm searching for events, facts, and the events are constant, widely covered by numerous scholarly sources. When we have several widely noted sources to cite from, that's all that's really needed. If there is a widely noted source that says something to the contrary, 'then' we address that issue, but at this late date no such source has been forthcoming. Again, we don't determine weight, etc by what some of the sources don't say, we determine these things by what they do say, and 'who' is covering these things and how the events in question fit into the greater picture. At this point we have provided a good number of widely recognized (i.e.French, non American and other) scholarly sources, so the repeated obfuscations and goal post moving are really uncalled for. The events in question speak for themselves in terms of weight, (i.e.Jefferson and the French Declaration of Rights..., Lafayette's organization of the French Assembly of Notables, Franklin, Minister to France, widely respected and admired by the French, their writings widely published in French journals, etc, etc...), so all we do is find enough sources to support these things, in terms of facts, which has more than amply been done at this point The repetitive and unyielding contentions such as this is exactly why I've been adding more sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of content in Lead; final final
I have spent the last week rewriting the article and reading Sources from an overall perspective rather than one position. Understanding different viewpoints is never wasted, but my conclusion is to ask why so much time's been spent on this. Suggesting another DRN given the inability to compromise shown so far seems ludicrous; I'm not even sure you'll be allowed to open one. I would also point out over-using these procedures can be viewed as a conduct violation, particularly if those asking for them have previously engaged in personal attacks (eg 'ignorance of history'). So I'm not going to participate except for referring the arbitrator to this.

Nearly every single article or source I've read (which includes every one of those advanced in support of a specific viewpoint eg Lefebvre, Jourdan, etc) suggests connections between the two events are multifarious and complex, and claims for the preponderance of one over the other generally driven by nationalism or for political ends.

The article by Ludwikowski (an American legal professor - there are others) goes through this is some detail. An English translation of Montesquieu was first published in Boston in 1762; in his personal correspondence, Jefferson admits he owes him a great debt, but in public emphasises Locke. For a variety of reasons (read the article if you're curious) the Founding Fathers were anxious to emphasise the British roots of their thinking; so while simultaneously claiming credit for influencing the French, they denied any French influence on their own. Which sounds familiar.

The Lead on the American Revolution, does not contain a single word on the influence of French thinking on the Patriots; fine by me. Apart from a fleeting reference to the 1778 Treaty (inserted at my insistence), even the American Revolutionary War Lead barely mentions the massive contribution made by France to US victory. Several editors in this thread have contributed to those articles; arguing the financial debt France incurred supporting the US and the intellectual debt incurred by French participants were so significant they need to be in this Lead, but not vice versa, does not give the impression of neutrality. Which everyone keeps assuring me is their only motivation.

There are two issues; (1) Did the American Revolution influence the French? Yes. (2) Is it significant enough to warrant inclusion in the Lead of this article? After considerable work on updating the relevant section of the article, my answer is No. It could usefully be in the articles on the Declaration, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights etc but not here. Based on that, the second paragraph should be removed; and I wrote it.

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course, Robinvp11, and asking another user to directly block an editor for fabricated reasons does not qualify as a personal attack and does not raise NPOV concerns, does it?


 * If you are concerned that content is lacking on the American Revolution page, it can be added. We already discussed doing that. This is a fairly simple solution. 021120x (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * One thing I'll add is that the Rossignol reference does not support the sentence it is being used to support. It discusses historiography - including articles written in the 1970s. It has very little to nothing of the thinking of the French Revolutionaries during the actual French Revolution. I also feel that the Schama book is a pretty significant reference. I know that there is a preference in Wikipedia for secondary sources, and that is a fairly prominent one. It clearly supports American inspiration for the F.R. Truth is King <small style="color: #7851a9; font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-style: italic">TALK 16:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

A word of advice from a DRN volunteer
So.. I've been pinged on the ANI multiple times about this article... and I'm the one who first volunteered to mediate- and then closed it once I realized there was an open ANI. And I've been following the discussion this whole time and I have some advice for ya'll...... Stop making this personal. At some point most of those participating in this "discussion"- and believe me I am stretching the very limits of that word to include what is going on above this post in its definition- Those of you involved have ceased academic debate and become condescending, arrogant, and demeaning. Other editors are going to be less inclined to listen to your logic when they are distracted by your delivery. A few of you have tried to remain professional- but most have treated your opponents like they are idiots. I used to teach communication/debate and let me tell you- most of you would be receiving F's right now.

So... now to the advice- Back up. Stop assuming the worst of your fellow editors. Stop posting walls and walls of text- be concise. Be courteous. And be willing to give up something to make a compromise. Decide what is your most important gain- and be willing to negotiate to achieve that. Right now- this topic will probably not be accepted at the DRN because there are too many of you, and there is too much disrespect. It would fail. every person involved here should take a step back- and look at how you are communicating with your fellow editors- how would you feel if they said the words you are saying right back at you? Would it make you feel better about yourself? Would it encourage you to change your mind? It doesn't matter if someone else started slinging mud first- if you participated- you are just as dirty. So quit the rudeness. Start treating each other with respect- and lets get this issue resolved!! Just the two cents of someone not involved but watching this for a few weeks now. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your words of conciliation. On several occasions I have offered compromises in terms of covering American involvement in the years leading up to the French Revolution, offering to make well sourced brief statements in appropriate places in the narrative, as is currently reflected in the lede of this article. In every case, after one issue after another is addressed, the goal post, just keeps being pushed back. For example, the original objection was that "zero" sources support the idea of any American influence. After that assertion was refuted the argument changed, and that only a "tiny minority" of sources are supportive. After it was shown that many reputable sources cover these things someone came up with the idea that we should only consult Tertiary sources, e.g. general accounts in encyclopedias, ignoring the many dozens of scholarly sources in our Bibliography and elsewhere, and on and on. Now we're at a point where the arguments are repeating themselves. This is not one of those cases where, 'Oh well, it's everyone's fault', which too often is how lengthy disputes are treated unfortunately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The "goalposts" have been very clear: due weight needs to be determined, and given the sheer number of secondary sources, tertiary sources (e.g., encyclopedias) are the best way to do that. Your accusations of bad faith, including that the goalposts keep being pushed back, are poisoning the discussion. I came here in good faith, as a new editor to the discussion, without a fixed opinion on the subject. But you've repeatedly called my motives into question, which makes it very difficult to continue to engage with you here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually that is the plain truth. The original contention was that there were "zero" sources that cover American involvement and influence. When that was proven to be far from the truth the argument changed in that only a "tiny minority" covered these ideas. Since then many sources have been produced that cover the ideas of American involvement and influence, so you came up with the idea that we should only check tertiary sources, generic encyclopedia articles. That argument can be applied to any idea. i.e.Since there are so many secondary sources, we should only consult tertiary sources, which is a bit ridiculous. Did it ever occur to you that many secondary sources have already consulted many other sources, and possess a 'tertiary' capacity of their own? Look at the bibliographies in some of these secondary sources -- filled with references to other sources. Now here you are again, running your idea that "tens of thousands" of sources must be checked to determine weight. More than enough sources have been presented, some by noted French historians, that clearly show that there is more than enough weight behind these events for us to mention them in brief. How many sources do you require? 200? 500? 1000? It seems you are just brushing off any sources that don't suit your position, just as you did when you claimed that "Literally none of these are historians..." which was brought to your attention already. Good faith? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You're confusing me with a different editor. I never claimed that "Literally none of these are historians...". I've consistently said that we need a broader overview of the sources to determine weight. Tertiary sources are a very good way of doing that. I've explained exactly why secondary sources are a poor way of doing that for this particular subject. If your argument is as strong as you claim it is, then you will have no problem finding tertiary sources that back it up, and there's a good likelihood that you will convince me to support inclusion of some statement about American influence in the lede. However, with 8 of 9 tertiary sources not mentioning the American revolution, I'm leaning strongly against inclusion at the moment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the mix up -- so many threads going on at once. — Finding an issue covered in an encyclopedia is not something that makes anyone's argument stronger.  You are basing the issue on what a few encyclopedia don't say.  I am basing the issue on what the scholarly sources do say, and in this case there are many, often by well noted historians. As was explained already, many secondary sources make reference to many other sources, and possess a 'tertiary' capacity of their own, as is evident in their bibliographies. Your encyclopedia articles are written by editors, employees of a given encyclopedia company. You are also singling out one issue, out of many, and insisting that we only support it with tertiary sources, knowing full well that they are only generic and general accounts about a revolution that was very involved in many things. This is cherry-picking the sources. We've been through this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is getting tiresome. You said,
 * We've said this umpteen times: nobody said that. I'm not going to repeat this again. We rely on secondary sources to verify assertions in the article. For a topic with as vast a literature as the French Revolution has, we rely on tertiary sources to determine proper apportionment of majority and minority opinions, vs. fringe views. This is covered in the policy; see WP:TERTIARY.
 * What an encyclopedia doesn't cover, is a good indication of what it considers too insignificant to list; an important indicator of WP:UNDUE weight. If multiple encyclopedias fail to include it, that becomes a very strong indicator of insignificance.
 * Nope; nobody is doing that. We are using tertiary sources (Surprise!) only to determine due weight.
 * In evaluating tertiary sources, nobody is cherry-picking; there aren't thousands of encyclopedias; we can literally look through every one we can get our hands on, and that is what we are doing, and listing *all* of htem. That is the opposite of cherry-picking. However, among the thousands of possible reliable, secondary sources, you pick the ones that agree with your position. You simply can't list them all. That is the very definition of cherry-picking, and you are engaging in it massively, while accusing others who are not doing it, of your sin. It's called, "projection". Mathglot (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope; nobody is doing that. We are using tertiary sources (Surprise!) only to determine due weight.
 * In evaluating tertiary sources, nobody is cherry-picking; there aren't thousands of encyclopedias; we can literally look through every one we can get our hands on, and that is what we are doing, and listing *all* of htem. That is the opposite of cherry-picking. However, among the thousands of possible reliable, secondary sources, you pick the ones that agree with your position. You simply can't list them all. That is the very definition of cherry-picking, and you are engaging in it massively, while accusing others who are not doing it, of your sin. It's called, "projection". Mathglot (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In evaluating tertiary sources, nobody is cherry-picking; there aren't thousands of encyclopedias; we can literally look through every one we can get our hands on, and that is what we are doing, and listing *all* of htem. That is the opposite of cherry-picking. However, among the thousands of possible reliable, secondary sources, you pick the ones that agree with your position. You simply can't list them all. That is the very definition of cherry-picking, and you are engaging in it massively, while accusing others who are not doing it, of your sin. It's called, "projection". Mathglot (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In evaluating tertiary sources, nobody is cherry-picking; there aren't thousands of encyclopedias; we can literally look through every one we can get our hands on, and that is what we are doing, and listing *all* of htem. That is the opposite of cherry-picking. However, among the thousands of possible reliable, secondary sources, you pick the ones that agree with your position. You simply can't list them all. That is the very definition of cherry-picking, and you are engaging in it massively, while accusing others who are not doing it, of your sin. It's called, "projection". Mathglot (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You are also singling out one issue, out of many, and insisting that we only support it with tertiary sources, knowing full well that they are only generic and general accounts about a revolution that was very involved in many things. The lede is supposed to be a generic and general account of the revolution, giving a broad overview without going into detail. The fact that encyclopedias give only generic and general accounts is a plus here. I think that encyclopedias would actually be a good way to broadly determine weight for each of the major aspects of the article - not just American influence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thucydides411 Encyclopedias are generally written for children and high school students to introduce them to a subject. No doubt there are many things that are not mentioned. College students, scholars, etc look to scholarly works when writing a dissertation, journal article or other works. We can consult the encyclopedias if you like, but we don't use them as a basis to ignore all the other sources, which again, possess a tertiary capacity of their own, as almost any credible and notable scholarly work always has a bibliography that includes many dozens, sometimes hundreds, of other sources. You seem to have this notion that 100 secondary sources are going to have 100 different accounts. There is only one set of facts, so any credible source is going to cover the same facts. The accounts can vary in what they cover, but the facts are constant, and we have produced more than enough sources that cover American involvement to establish weight. American involvement is a fact and the attempts thus far to write these events off as having little to no weight fly in the face of the dozens of scholarly sources out there that indeed cover these events. If coverage of American involvement and influence was rare in secondary sources then you would have a case about the topic having little weight.  All you've done is made this claim on the basis of a handful of selected encyclopedias. If you ignore all the other sources then this would indeed amount to cherry picking the sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Mathglot Please don't lecture me about cherry picking when you've made statements like this:
 * Important: secondary sources are endless, not appropriate here, and may derail the discussion. Please stick to the WP:TERTIARY sources.
 * I am going through as many secondary sources as possible. Many of the sources are not searchable on line. However, many of them are, and there are many PD texts to be had at archive.org and elsewhere. Once again, I have produced sources written by several noted French historians, and many others.  All you've done, otoh, is made arguments about what some encyclopedias don't say and, along with the ridiculous claim that "zero" sources support the idea of any American influence, you have yet to substantiate your assertion of a "tiny minority" either. Encyclopedias are generally written for grade-schoolers and high school students to introduce them to a given subject. They are not model examples of how a scholarly work should be authored. Wikipedida articles, esp history articles, overwhelmingly refer to scholarly and secondary works. While tertiary sources are allowed -- "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere."  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

From another DRN volunteer
Thank you, User:Nightenbelle.

User:021120x - You were the original poster of the ANI thread, and you were the original poster of the DRN thread. So obviously you have thought, at some time in the past, that there was a content dispute, and you have thought, at some time in the past, that there was a conduct dispute. You also referred more than once to personal attacks. You have said that the content discussion was finished, but you asked for administrative guidance about changes to consensus, and you referred to stonewalling. Of all of the editors involved here, you are the one whose positions either are the most variable or are the hardest to define. Now, my suggestion to you, User:021120x, is that you do one of the following three four things: Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Write a draft of what there is agreement about, and ask for buy-in.
 * 2. Write out a set of A-B questions that you want a new RFC on.
 * 3. At ANI, identify what administrative action you want taken against what other editors.  (ANI is for administrative action, such as topic-bans or partial blocks.
 * 4. Apologize for having wasted our time, and agree to closure of the ANI, and agree to avoid editing in these areas for a few weeks.
 * Your call.


 * This post does not belong on the FR talk page. Please present it either on a user talk page or in the ANI. 021120x (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This absolutely belongs here as it is a suggestion of how to move forward and improve the article. Once again- this is yet another sign of WP:OWN trying to dictate who can post what on this talk page. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

National Historiography
I have not been following the details of the discussion here, and will provide a high-level comment that may be useful or may be ignored. One of the main issues if not the only issue has to do with how much mention there should be of American influence on the French Revolution. That question should be addressed at two (or maybe more) levels, the level of the lede paragraph and in the body of the article. If there is disagreement about whether to mention American influence in the lede, then it probably should not be mentioned. However, it occurs to me that the reason for this disagreement is, in part, that the reliable sources in different countries reflect different national historiographic traditions. I grew up knowing that there had been an American influence on the French revolution, because I learned history in an American high school. I have learned in editing Wikipedia and in dealing with editing disputes that different national historiographic practices have different emphases, and the different national historiographic practices are all reliable secondary sources. In a major high-level article such as French Revolution, Wikipedia should state what the different historiographic emphases are in different national historiographic traditions. In Scotland, I would assume that the influences of the Scottish Enlightenment on both the American Revolution and the French Revolution are given more weight than they are in France, where the influence of the philosophes would be stressed.

My recommendation, then, without having gotten into the details, is that it might be a good idea in the article on the French Revolution to have a section on how the reliable sources present the national historiographic views. That should be in the body of the article, not in the lede. If different national historiographic viewpoints differ about a topic, such as American influence, I would suggest leaving it out of the lede.

This overall approach, of describing different national historiographic views, should apply to many historical topics of global interest, such as World War One and World War Two, not just the French Revolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually there are at least three widely noted French historians, ( Louis Madelin, François Furet,  François-Alphonse Aulard) and other non American sources, as outlined above, ( 1, 2, 3, 4, etc..) that speak about an American involvement and resultant influence, so the issue isn't exactly one that is divided by national entities.  American involvement is not a view, it is defined by actual events involving Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Lafayette (Lafayette was actually French but was a close friend of, and fought along side with, George Washington and was an ardent advocate of the American Revolution and whose writings were covered by French journals across France in the few years leading up to the French Revolution), covered by many sources.  How much influence is the only debatable idea here, but all things considered, it's a bit difficult to categorically deny. We should at least cover the events and let the readers decide as to what influence was effected. There are more than enough sources that cover these things where there should be no question about weight.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, I can't speak for Robert, but my understanding of Robert McClenon's post isn't about the content here per se; it's about whether and how to introduce a historiographical subtopic to the article, and in what fashion that might be organized. He might well agree with you on specific instances of content, or not; his point (I believe) is in what way to organize a historiographical narrative. Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * He spoke about how the issues might vary between national sources, which is what I felt should be addressed, over the prospect of a special histography section, esp since there is so much concern over all the sources out there and what they do and don't say. Many of the issues can be averted if we just stick to the facts, and let readers decide the weight, simply because we have too many sources that can no longer be ignored at this point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Robert McClenon, thanks for your comment. It's an important topic, but since we already have a whole article about it, I don't think we need a lot of information about that here, although we could summarize and link it per WP:SS. My initial reaction to your specific point of a national or regional organization, is that a chronological organization makes more sense. While there are certainly some nationalistic variation on views on certain historical topics (particularly when they concern the country in question, of course), when we are talking about historiography, by definition we are talking about professional historians. Historians are either multilingual, or make it their business to keep up with historiography in other countries. That doesn't mean they have to agree, of course, and they are not immune to nationalistic trends, but views on many topics tend to vary and evolve more over time, than by country, and I think it would be a disservice to make the dividing factor based on nation. Paxton (U.S.) for example, certainly caused a revolution in Vichy historiography, and it happened first in the United States about a topic the French would rather have avoided, but after being shocked by the earthquake of his book, there was furious, but professional, debate about it in France (and elswhere), and many have come around (though it is still debated). So, I see it really as a continuing ebb and flow over time that may *start* in one country or another, but then spreads among the professional community.  Let's say maybe that each country's historians may spice it up based on features of their own culture, but that's more a question of adding horseradish or mustard to your salad dressing. (That said, I think that statement fails, in cases of dictatorial governments where histories are not under the control of historians, but directed by the state.)
 * Secondly, I think what you have observed is very real, but what you see in school textbooks for young people, is *very* much dependent on national myths and traditions, and often bears only a kind of passing resemblance to actual history, but is more a kind of pastiche of the "received national legend" spray-painted onto the bare lattice framework of historical events.
 * Finally, any kind of decision about how to divide up and organize articles or sections on historiography, should also come from reliable sources, and not us as Wikipedia editors. In this regard, tertiary historiographical survey articles are a good starting point. I don't have a professional journal article of this type at hand, but this article from EB is a kind of mix of an encyclopedia article about the causes of the French Revolution aimed at a general audience (that is, to an encyclopedia-reading audience, rather than other historians), mixed with a tertiary historiography. This article, and others like it, might give us an overview of prevailing views in historiography, and could then inform further investigation into secondary historiographical surveys, which we could then use as our citations for whatever we said in that section. But it shouldn't really be Wikipedia editors, making decisions about how to divide up the historiography; that should be strongly influenced by reliable tertiary historiographical sources, with our own spin, of course, to devise a narrative most useful to our readers.
 * Be aware, also, of the meta-trap; that in deciding how to divide up an article about historiography of some topic, we are engaging in history of historiography, and that could be a minefield for original research. Worth doing, I think, but I'd love to see the most experienced, and disinterested Wikipedia editors tackle that one.
 * So, I wouldn't really be in favor of a section on how the reliable sources present the national historiographic views, at least not here, when there's already a more focused article about the topic, and not until we've established through sources whether that is a valid lens from which to view the issue. Which maybe it is; we just need to look into it.
 * Btw, the whole question of the comparison, and divergence between prevailing accepted professional historians' views on a topic, and the expression of it in schoolbooks of a given nation is a fascinating one, and for certain topics, very possibly including this one, could make an interesting article in its own right. (I'm sure the History of Thanksgiving would make a great article if written neutrally.) But now I fear I'm getting too far off the topic of improving this one. Tnanks, 22:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Missed full sig above, thus notif not sent; repinging . Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree on one point from Mathglot, that we shouldn't devote a section on historiography, as he explains, this could easily lead to other issues, and it seems we have more than enough to deal with now. Recommend that we just outline a few of the facts, and leave matters of opinion regarding influence to the readers. At this point I believe we have more than enough sources to do this with. We already have a lede statement intimating an American involvement, cited by a well credentialed historian, Annie Jourdan, (1, 2) so we need to follow suite and outline, in brief, some of the facts involved in the body of the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've updated the article content on this topic if anyone wants to read it. A few points;


 * The title of the Jourdan article is "The "Alien Origins" of the French Revolution: American, 'Scottish, Genevan, and Dutch Influences"; if you're using that as the basis of arguing for inclusion, consistency requires mentioning all four, not just the US.


 * American politics was dominated for 20 years by the question of whether the two Revolutions were connected; 'Sort of' from Jefferson, 'Absolutely not' by Hamilton. So even they weren't sure.


 * As I mentioned previously, Ho Chi Minh used the Declaration of Independence as the model for his announcement of the Republic of Vietnam in 1946; I've yet to see anyone on here suggest the US thus created it. So its not as simple as saying 'Jefferson contributed to the wording, therefore etc'


 * Every single Source I've read (and not all are included in the article) agree in reality they influenced each other; Jefferson downplayed them for political reasons. The question of influence is probably yes - which we'd agreed over a month ago


 * The Lede of the article on the American Revolution (and one or two editors are also involved in that), contains zero mention of the French influence on American thinking; it doesn't even mention British influence, which every single Founding Father acknowledged. I don't have a problem with that, but why include it in one, not the other? The degree of American influence is not significant enough for inclusion in the Lede.


 * Maybe everyone should just take a break for a few weeks, I'll finish updating the article, then open it up for Comments. We need to break this cycle. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Robinvp11 — The lede in fact says "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." Instead of referring to "Scottish, Genevan, and Dutch European" we refer to Europeans. Jourdan, however, explicitly says "...contacts accelerated by the American Revolution.", which is understandable as it was the Americans who just went through a successful revolution and threw off the reigns of monarchy, Britain, a long time rival of France, the events of which were closely watched by French revolutionary thinkers and others. The writings about these events in relation to France, by Paine, Franklin, Lafayette and Jefferson, were covered in French journals throughout France in the years leading up to their revolution, thus helping to 'accelerate' the advent of the French Revolution, which is nothing amazing or highly unlikely, all things considered. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I know what the Lede says - I wrote it. I inserted it on 8 October as a compromise to prevent a pointless argument; didn't help.


 * No one's ever disputed the fact of influence but I've asked this several times; Why is this point so important it needs to be in the Lede?.


 * I genuinely don't understand why we've expended so much energy on this. The AR article Lede doesn't even mention British influence, let alone French. The corresponding article in French Wikipedia doesn't mention American influence. No one's nagging the editors of the AR article to include the influence of British political thinkers on the Patriots, when every one of the Founding Fathers specifically stated they were following their example. So I think its reasonable to ask why this huge battle has been fought to include it here. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Restored discussion
These are the coments and replies that were blanked out, above. Mathglot's comments are shaded in green.



We are only going by the established facts as they are presented in reliable sources. Jefferson and the declaration, Lafayette's involvement in the Assembly of Notables, etc, are established facts. Benjamin Franklin's involvement with French revolutionary thinkers is widely noted. That is not a "skewed view", so now you can put the "skewed view" idea on the shelf next to your "tiny minority" claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)



If you are going to assert a negative, you have to prove it. Sorry, but the belabored double talk is becoming something of a blur at this point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)



We have produced many notable sources that support the ideas of American involvement and influence -- many of them by noted French historians. I don't have to disprove your unproven claim about a "tiny minority". All that need be done is to provide enough reliable sources, notable sources, that support the idea. Your speculative assertion of a "tiny minority" is just empty talk. You're digressing back to your, 'my stack of books is bigger than yours' argument', which you have yet to even substantiate, let alone prove. This is stonewalling. Given the number of sources out there neither of us can assert that a topic is or isn't covered by a "significant majority". In any case, even significant minority views are allowed to be expressed, but again, American involvement is not a view, it's a fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)



If you make any sort of assertion, positive or negative, the onus on you is to prove it. Bering in mind that you originally asserted that "zero" sources supported any American influence, you have yet to substantiate that only a "tiny minority" of sources cover the American involvement. Meanwhile, we've produced many. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Closing comment. We have established due weight simply by presenting many notable and scholarly sources that cover the events in question. The idea of a "tiny minority" also remains unsubstantiated. If you don't want to prove a negative, then don't present one as a basis for an argument. Covering what many sources say is not presenting a "skewed view", so please don't exhibit ownership and battleground tendencies by telling us: "What is NOT going to happen at this article, is that we're going to stuff into the article content that gives a skewed view of what historians actually say about the topic." Your direct order aside, saying what many multiple historians say about the facts is not skewing the article, and typically you have not presented one actual example of something that would "skew" the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You. Have. No. Understanding. Of WP:DUE WEIGHT. After, how many explanations of it on this very page?  Ten? Fifteen? Nor ONUS or BURDEN, either. I just can't decide if you just disagree with the policy, or really, truly, don't get it.  Since your edits seem fine in most other respects, I have to assume the former, but who knows. Either way, it's not worth discussing it with you any longer. Resolution will have to come from consensus among a group of editors, and we'll see how that goes. Mathglot (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Add this from above, because I think its relevant here. The Lede of the article on the American Revolution (and one or two editors are also involved in that), contains zero mention of the French influence on American thinking, which is also well documented. It doesn't even mention British influence, which every single Founding Father acknowledged. I don't have a problem with that, (because honestly who cares?) but its inconsistent to insist on the inclusion of American influence on a foreign event but not vice versa. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Robinvp11, I have to agree, the influence was a two way street between the various countries involved. There are certainly enough well established facts to support that. I would have no objection with briefly covering how the various countries impacted each other on a social and political level before and during the French Revolution. If this article is ever to make it to FA, per FA criteria it will have to present the various topics comprehensively and in context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, you can stammer and recite the words 'Due-Weight' all you like, but if a topic is covered by multiple notable sources it indeed has weight – or are you seriously trying to convince us that e.g. Jefferson's authoring of the French Declaration has no weight? You started out this debate with me by presenting a google list of books with the claim that "zero" sources supported any American influence, which is utterly ridiculous. Near the top of your own list was the book Thomas Paine and the French Revolution, authored by Carine Lounissi, yet another French historian, an Associate Professor at University of Rouen, and a member of LARCA. Overall you've been stumbling through the debate half blind with unsubstantiated claims about a "tiny minority", Due-Weight, etc while you keep ignoring multiple reliable sources by French and other scholars, but at least in the process you mange to come up with a few things, like the book on Paine. Thanks for that at least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Call for dispute resolution (redux)
I'm cheerfully renewing the call for dispute resolution. I wouldn't have done so, except for the strong encouragement in the closing statement at the recent ANI thread (perma‎, diff‎) by. I hope, more than expect this to go anywhere, given the derailing disaster that occurred the last time we tried this, but you never know. Brief, bulleted responses appreciated. Please include "yes", "no", or whatever other response you wish. Also, if you could include a brief statement about what the DRN core issue to be resolved should be. The question being surveyed below is: "Should we bring this dispute to DRN?" Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC) Update: linked, above. Mathglot (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes – because when a discussion gets intractably stuck or goes around in circles like this TP amply demonstrates, we have to try something else. (WP:3O is another option). More uninvolved eyeballs by other experienced editors can help. Also, User:Robert McClenon's forbearance seems to know almost no bounds, and that's just what we need for this. As to the DRN statement, I prefer a concrete statement like: "To what extent was the American Revolution one of the causes of the French Revolution?" but am open to other formulations. Mathglot (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Several times it was suggested that we compromise by simply mentioning a few facts (e.g. Lafayette's and Franklin's revolutionary writings widely published in France, etc) and let the readers decide as to any influence. No other compromise has been made, a couple of editors seem to be completely unyielding in their approach, and as such, the discussion goes on seemingly forever. We could have easily moved on if that was allowed to occur and if some editors didn't try to tell us which types of sources we should consult. In any case DRN will not take on a case if an issue is still being debated somewhere else, as they consider that forum shopping. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes – because when a discussion gets intractably stuck or goes around in circles like this TP amply demonstrates, we have to try something else. (WP:3O is another option). More uninvolved eyeballs by other experienced editors can help. Also, User:Robert McClenon's forbearance seems to know almost no bounds, and that's just what we need for this. As to the DRN statement, I prefer a concrete statement like: "To what extent was the American Revolution one of the causes of the French Revolution?" but am open to other formulations. Mathglot (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I think a lot can be had by going back to basics and talking it out. Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  01:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
Can we keep discussion out of the survey section for clarity and readability, in case others wish to contribute there or here? In response to your 20:55, 23 Oct. comment, that's exactly what DRN is for: when "discussion goes on seemingly forever". That's the whole *reason* for requesting DRN. You are right that they won't take it on if it's being discussed somewhere else; can you provide a link please to the other location? Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible Dispute Resolution
Okay. I am willing to open a new case at DRN, and will list as participants any editors who appear to have expressed an interest in moderated dispute resolution. I will be making up the rules as I go along, and I will be setting the calendar to allow the case run for at least through the end of the calendar year. Normally DRN cases take two to three weeks. Rather than trying to reach compromises on wording, my main objective will be to define the scope of a series of neutral well-defined RFCs. I will ask User:GeneralNotability and User:Tenryuu to be aware of the dispute resolution, and, just as importantly, for the participants to be aware that the administrators are at hand with big sticks so that the participants will speak softly. I will open a case at DRN if at least three editors request it, and if an editor opens a proper case request, and the other editors agree, I will moderate it.

I will try to get the questions down to a Yes-No or A-B-C-D form. I will also try to identify questions about the lede separately from questions about the article body.

I will formulate the rules as I go, but they will include:
 * Be civil. Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia.  Incivility will be hatted.  Uncivil editors know in advance where the door is.
 * Be concise. Overly long statements make the poster feel better, but do not provide much information to anyone else.
 * Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress, unless there is interim consensus for the edit. Editors who edit the article know where the door is.
 * Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors.  Comments about editors that are not related to content may be hatted.
 * If you go to the door, there may an administrator with a partial block on the other side of the door. There may instead be an Oryctolagus cuniculus on the other side of the door, but they are fast, and are only a distraction.

Now: What editors are willing to take part in modified moderated discussion, the primary purpose of which is to formulate binding RFCs? I've read what look like two Yes's so far. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm willing. Mathglot (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification (and for stepping in to moderate, for that matter). I am willing and able to intervene if necessary, but I sincerely hope that everyone can abide by the guidelines you've laid out. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As was suggested several times, we can avert all this perpetual debate by simply and briefly mentioning a few facts, covered by more than enough French and other historians. Once again, no one wants to add a section or lengthy coverage on American involvements. The French were strong allied belligerents of the Americans during the American Revolutionary War. To think they returned to France, whose countrymen had hopeful eyes fixed on the outcome of that war, with no ideas of a revolution that would throw off an oppressive monarchy, as the Americans did, seems very unlikely. Certainly the French had their own, and similar, reasons for a revolution, but to take the giant step and go forth with a major revolt was quite another matter. Since the Americans had succeeded in their revolution, and since major players in that revolution, i.e.Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, et al, along with Lafayette, all of whom were widely admired and respected by the French, were outspoken in France, and whose ideas were published in French journals across France, it stands to reason they 'helped' to inspire the French populace that a revolution was an advent whose time had come. We don't have to even mentioned the idea of 'influenced'. All that need be done is to mention a few facts and let the readers make the call over 'influence' for themselves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I may have misread the above comments by User:Gwillhickers, but I am reading them as a personal statement that they do not want to take part in discussion leading to one or more RFCs because they want other editors to "avert this perpetual debate" by accepting their suggestions as to what facts to mention. That is their privilege, but I am making this offer because I think that some editors think that there is disagreement as to what facts should be mentioned, and whether in the lede or the body.  At this point I count two editors who want to take part in an exercise to draft an RFC.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The connections between the French and American Revolution have been covered in the body of the article. I have now asked Gwillhickers this question three times; Why is this point so important it needs to be in the Lede?. That's the issue.

The Lede in French Wikipedia doesn't mention American influence; the Lede in the American Revolution doesn't even mention British influence, when every Founding Fathers claimed inspiration from them, while some historians refer to the AR as 'the Fourth English Civil War'. The French barely get a mention in the Lede on the American Revolutionary War, when the Patriots would have lost without them. So why is that?

Sometimes its ok to walk away; for example, I fundamentally disagree with the definition of Belligerents etc in the article on the ARW; from my perspective, the explanations provided are simple rationalisations. I also disagree with large chunks of the content - but I walked away because I'm one person and frankly its not going to stop me sleeping at night. So why are we still circling the wagons on this? What great principle is at stake? Robinvp11 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The British didn't inspire the ARW, they were its principle cause – the Americans did not cause the French Revolution, so that analogy is not the best. While the French article on the French Revolution doesn't mention an American influence (does it even mention Jefferson or Franklin anywhere I wonder?) this is no basis to not do so here, per other stuff exists, or doesn't exist. My basic premise is, that American involvement during the years leading up the the French Revolution involved mentionable facts, it's not just a view,  and are covered by enough reliable sources, including the one for the statement in the lede, which I believe you included(?).  In any case, I am perfectly willing to mention in brief a couple of these facts in a neutral manner with no comments about influence or inspiration. Or are we to assume that people like Jefferson, Franklin, etc,  played no role before the actual revolution materialized, regardless of the fact that their writings were published in journals across France beforehand?  The French Revolution didn't occur on a separate planet, many factors fed into its fruition. The events in question are covered by several noted French historians, so this in not simply an American POV. Taking this debate to another forum seems a bit pointless if there is no willingness to make any compromise whatsoever. All that is likely to occur is the same drawn-out repetitious debate between a few angry editors. I could be wrong on that note, but thus far I'm not seeing anything that would indicate otherwise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Another Round of Dispute Resolution
Well, we seem to be right back where we started. I will be initiating another round of discussion at DRN, but the topic of the discussion will not be compromise on article content, but simply the wording of one or more RFCs. One of the RFCs will be about what is anything to say about American influence, in the lede paragraph. Any editor who thinks that American influence should be mentioned in the lede is strongly advised to participate in the discussion, because the discussion will determine what wording is proposed in the RFC. Editors who do not think that American influence needs to be mentioned in the lede are also invited, but the question of whether to mention American influence in the lede will be decided by the RFC, not by the discussion.

Participation in the discussion is the way to influence what is said in the RFCs. Participation in the discussion is not necessary to take part in the RFCs themselves. Is that clear? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said all along, I've no intention of mentioning the subjective idea of 'influence' in the lede or anywhere in the article. I am content with the current statement in the lede, sourced by a French historian. The French were strong allies of the Americans during their revolution. Major players of the American Revolution, widely admired and respected across France, esp Franklin, were present during, and publicly outspoken in the years leading up to, the French Revolution. I'm not understanding why there is this seemingly ardent opposition to even mention these things, esp since we have French and other historians which cover these things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers For the fifth or sixth time, we are discussing whether this point is so significant it needs to be included in the Lede. So continually saying you're happy with the Lede as is isn't helpful; I think we all know that already;


 * Let me quote from your comment above; The British didn't inspire the American Revolution, they were its principal cause – the Americans did not cause the French Revolution.... You are simultaneously insisting on including American influence in this Lede (even though the Americans did not cause the French Revolution) while omitting British influence from the Lede on the American Revolution (even though The British...were its principal cause). I know you've contributed to that article; why aren't you banging on that door? It makes it hard to assume your neutrality.


 * There is this seemingly ardent opposition to even mention these things. No there isn't - I spent two days researching it, it's been in the body of the article for the last three weeks. We are discussing its inclusion in the Lede because you won't let it go; even I want it out and I did the work. That's your right but please don't make it seem you're the only person being reasonable.


 * Robert McClenon We don't need another DRN or RFC; they require compromise and I have seen zero evidence of that. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Robinvp11 - Please explain to me how RFC requires compromise, or explain to me how you plan to proceed if there seems to be an impasse. I have a suggestion, but I am asking you to explain.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Robert McClenon My opinion; I don't see any point in a DRN or RFC because my perception is the argument is no longer about the content but about winning. We have more than enough information to agree a consensus. Do we retain the paragraph in the Lede? Or do we take it out? Why not just vote?


 * I wrote the current Lede and I've updated the article content so I have a better view than most. I'd take it out but I can live with it in. I've asked Gwillhickers the same question five times and I still haven't managed to get an answer to my question - instead I've been provided with a whirligig of repetition. I don't want to do that any more; I'll vote on a consensus but we've spent too much energy on this already. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Robinvp11 - You write: "Why not just vote?"  Maybe you and I have different concepts of what the RFC is.  An RFC can be used as the method for voting.  There often seems to be a hesitancy to use an RFC, and to "just vote" instead, but "just voting" without using an RFC sometimes results in argument after the fact about what was being voted on, and often someone decides that they won't accept the result of the vote because it wasn't done by RFC.  So I am proposing that we use an RFC in order to vote.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Robin, Excuse me, but you have not asked me any such question "five times". As I've indicated several times now, I was happy with the lede, and indicated this with statements such as this: — "Yes, your lede edit, approved by two other editors, is more than appropriate, and just for the record, has the support from at least two more editors here." — "...there are enough sources out there that can allow us to make a neutral and objective statement as we currently have in the lede" — "Out of dozens of statements in the lede, this idea deserves a least one mention in the lede" — "...offering to make well sourced brief statements in appropriate places in the narrative, as is currently reflected in the lede of this article" — "We already have a lede statement intimating an American involvement, cited by a well credentialed historian, Annie Jourdan, so we need to follow suite and outline, in brief, some of the facts involved in the body of the text."  That means leave it in. As for being reasonable I've had to deal with statements like there is "zero" sources that support American influence, which was then changed to the idea that there is only a "tiny minority" of sources. I was also told that "There are probably tens of thousands of scholarly works on the French Revolution. Pointing to "dozens of scholars" means nothing". Since when does anyone need more than a dozen reliable sources to cite a factual statement? Please don't make issue with me over rationality with personal attacks. I've been critical about various statements made, but I've never made the claim that I was the only rational editor around here, and I don't appreciate your inference that I have. Up until now you and I have had no heated exchanges. Hoping we can keep it that way.  Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Robert, I've no problem with a vote, however I am not happy with a marginal vote, like 2:1 or 4:3.  In cases like that a compromise should be struck.  In any case, a vote should be associated with a clear rationale. If this rational is not straight forward and requires a lot of explaining and finger-pointing we only end up going around in the same circle.  We should establish some basic rules for all editors if we have a vote here, or in another forum.  i.e. Express why you think the lede should remain, in 200 words or less, with no finger pointing at other editors. One statement, one vote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Gwillhickers - If we have a vote here, it will be a Request for Comments, which is really a Request for Consensus. In some content disputes that are complicated by conduct issues, the editors are for some reason hesitant to use RFC, and try to conduct other sorts of votes that don't have the formality of RFC.  I am not entirely sure why some editors try to avoid RFC, other than that they want to get the question answered in less than a month.  We have been arguing long enough that we should have the patience to be willing to use RFC.  The discussion at DRN is intended to determine the wording of the RFCs, not to work out the wording of the lede.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's keep in mind that per WP:RFC, it is not a vote at all; closure evaluation depends upon argumentation based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Preparation at DRN for RFC
I have, on my own initiative, opened a new discussion at DRN. The purpose of the discussion is, at this time, to decide what the wording of the RFC will be. I will be closing the discussion here within 24 hours because I am moving it to DRN, where the first topic will be the wording of the RFC. It appears that the question is whether to keep the second paragraph of the lede, or to delete it. Conduct further discussion at DRN, please. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Robert. That makes two discussions on that page with the name, "French Revolution". Assuming the first one is now moot, could you please archive it, or change the name of the second one so it doesn't engender confusion among participants or observers? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have renamed the two disputes Dispute_resolution_noticeboard and Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Please take part in French Revolution Two.  French Revolution One has been closed and should be archived any time.  I don't want to try to archive the completed case because the archiving is normally done by bot, but the bot doesn't seem to have been working recently.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood; thanks. Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, in regards to the Threaded discussion at DRN we should try to avoid another very long discussion for two reasons. First, belabored and long winded discussions tend to ward off new participants who have to comb through virtual pages of the discussion in order to respond accordingly and comprehensively. Second, as we have just been through several very long discussions, it would seem at this point we are more than familiar with the issues that we should be able to summarize our reasons inside the scope of a medium sized paragraph. This will better invite new participants who only have to read our given paragraphs and to pick up the thread and join in. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * — Question: User has been blocked from editing this page for a week. Does this also mean he can't participate at the  DRN: French Revolution discussion, during this time? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * He's been blocked from editing all pages on Wikipedia, except his own talk page. So yes, that means he can't participate here now. I'm fine with waiting out the block, which expires on the 29th (if I counted right), if that's deemed desirable. 09:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Status of RFC, and Participation of Editors
I have published the RFC below. It will run for 30 days. Any editor can and should express their opinion briefly in the Survey. You may also take part in the Threaded Discussion, but saying the same thing a third time probably will not change anyone's mind.

If no one raises any more issues in DRN, I will close the DRN in 48 hours. Anyone may raise additional issues, which will probably result in more RFCs.

The blocked editor will come off block and may take part in the RFC. If the DRN is still running, they may also take part in the DRN. All editors taking part in the DRN will comply with the rules that I provide for the DRN.

Does that answer your questions about discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you organize a closure, or a request for one? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

<hr style="width:80%;margin-right:18em"/> Robert, the Rfc has ended. I wanted to thank you for the closure request, but especially for all your work here, as well as at the DRN, ANI, and frankly I've forgotton where-all-else, but I know it's been a lot, and not easy, and must have been frustrating at times. Your untiring efforts have not gone unappreciated; the article is the better for it. Please keep up the good work, and thanks again! (Adding ) Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Multiple discussions
Along with the discussions here, there is also a section at the DRN for a discussion, and another for a Threaded discussion. Then there will be a follow up with an RFC, perhaps two. Initially I had the idea that, since the issue has been discussed at length here, that the DNC forum would simplify matters, yet after the DRN process, with its yet to come discussions, we will be involved with maybe two more RFCs. This will take quite some time, esp if we go through the same debates all over again. Meanwhile, the article can't be edited. I had hoped that the DRN would simply decide on whether to include the existing lede statement and that an uninvolved administrator at DRN would make the call after we made our simple statements. The effort to resolve this is greatly appreciated, but overall, this doesn't seem like a simple way of resolving the issue and could very well compound matters for some time. Hope I am wrong on that note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Explanation
I will explain a few things. First, the purpose of the Threaded Discussion is to allow the editors to talk past each other. It can be ignored, but some editors want to talk and talk and talk. Second, the decision as to whether to include the lede paragraph will be made here, in Talk:French Revolution, by RFC. The DRN will only decide what will be in the RFC, and we think that the first RFC will simply be the controversial lede paragraph. The RFC will be open to everyone, not just the current participants, and will run for 30 days. When it is closed, it becomes binding. Third, the blocked editor will come off block and will be able to participate in the RFC. I will decide whether to let them participate in the DRN, but it is the RFC that decides on article content. Are there any further questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems we've already had a virtual RFC here in terms of the issue, pro and con. Yet the only purpose of the DRN, in this case, is to decide what we talk about in an RFC? Okaaaay..  Imo, we could resolve this issue by simply abiding by policy and let the DRN resolve that issue alone, per its intended function. As for the talk, talk, talk, (e.g. "zero sources" don't mention American involvement, "tens of thousands of sources" to consult first, in spite of the many which cover American involvement, etc), it seems we're heading in the same direction and inviting more of the same endless foot dragging.  If more than enough scholarly and notable sources say so, so do we.  There are more than enough notable sources that cover the facts involving American involvement, as the issues leading up to the French Revolution, involving former French allies of the American Revolution, and what it stood for, didn't occur in a vacuum. It seems this entire affair only involves a decision whether to censor the lede regarding what many notable sources say. It was my understanding that consensus, such that it may amount to, can't override policy. "Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." More than enough sources have been presented that more than justify brief coverage, at least. Some sources don't mention American involvement, among other things, but not one has been presented that comprehensively explains how  American involvement amounted to something that shouldn't be at least mentioned in the lede. Every historical advent had issues leading up to it. Don't mean to be objectionable, but this is a legitimate concern. Guess we should give the benefit of the doubt here and go along with the DRN, but these issues will likely come up again. I've left my statement at the DRN. Again, many thanks for your good faith efforts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Further background on American influence in the French Revolution
Below is text taken from French scholar, Annie Jourdan, covering the extent of American influence before the beginning of the French Revolution. By now there should be little doubt of the connections between the A.R.W. and the F.R. and its significance.


 * "Before further exploring the philosophical influence of the Scots on the French revolutionaries, let us return to the American War of Independence of 1776-1783, which had affected not only the ideas but also the lives and experiences of many French citizens who fought alongside the insurgents. The aristocrats Lafayette, Montmorency, Rochambeau, Lauzun, La Rochefoucauld, and other liberal nobles and citizens were involved in the creation of the new republic. When they returned to Paris, they met Benjamin Franklin, Philip Mazzei, and, somewhat later, Thomas Jefferson, William Short, and Gouverneur Morris. From the beginning of the war, Franklin enjoyed great popularity as the paragon of modern virtue; for instance, liberal aristocrats commissioned a sculpted bust of him to add to their collection of great men. Franklin and his admirers discussed the American Revolution and its democratic ambitions; indeed, American state constitutions had been translated and were circulating through salons and the press six years before the French Revolution. French ministers' attempts at reform in the 1770s and 1780s further encouraged these discussions." — Jourdan, Journal of the Western Society for French History, Volume 35, 2007  See also:  Robert H. Blackman, "American Influences on the French Constitutional Debates of Summer 1789," in Proceedings of the Consortium on Revolutionary Europe (2003)''
 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

No Freedom of the Press in pre-revolutionary France
Before the French Revolution, under monarchical rule, there was no freedom of the press before 1793 when Louis XVI was executed. While issues of enlightenment and reform were tolerated in French journals, there were stiff penalties, even death, if one were to publicly speak out against the King in terms of his removal from the French throne. During this time American newspapers were covering the events as they unfolded before the French Revolution, and many of these found their way into France. Below is a journal worth reading, (and an excerpt) by Dr. Beatrice F. Hyslop, which covers how American Newspapers helped to fuel the sentiment behind the coming French Revolution. It is advents such as this, covered in reliable sources, that provide us with good reason to cover American involvement in the lede and in the body of the text, in due proportion. -- Enjoy.



Here is an excerpt which should give one an idea of the capacity in which American newspapers publicly defended the French revolution and its cause:


 * "The National Gazette, the famous Jeffersonian paper and defender of the French Revolution, published a series of four articles under the title of "Cool Reflections on the French Revolution," between June 8 and 19, 1793 which the third one on the Sans-culottes was borrowed for the series of eight on "Cursory Thought on the French Revolution," published by the New York Journal, June 15-July 6, 1793. Both these papers were pro-French Revolution. The New York Journal printed a second series, on the French Constitution of 1793, between September 18 and December 4, 1793. Aside from such specific series, American papers printed a multitude of "letters to the editor" by anonymous writers using such pseudonyms as Brutus, Davila (known to be John Adams), Cincinnatus, and other names of classical heroes, or merely a "friend of the people," and other such phrases." <Hyslop, 1960, pp. 80-81>

RFC: Second paragraph of lede
Should the second paragraph of the lede section be left in the article, or removed? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The second paragraph currently reads:

Enter your statement to Keep or Delete the paragraph in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey.

You may engage in threaded discussion in the section for Threaded Discussion. (However, it is not necessary or useful to repeat the same arguments that have already been made that are still visible on this talk page.)

Do not change the structure of this RFC. The Survey will take place here, not anywhere else. The DRN has been failed because it was apparently confusing at least one editor. Just take part in the Survey right below here. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * Delete. Top much emphasis on possible American influence in overly long lead while omitting other points of reference. The first reference used for this is which covers "American, Scottish, Genevan, and Dutch Influences", while the article only has American in the lead.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * wp:error: There are 15 paragraphs with mention of America or Americans, 5 without. See article discussion below. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete It gives too much emphasis on what is ultimately not a universally accepted view amongst historians in the lede. The lede should summarize the article, and there isn't a comprehensive discussion of it in the article, so it should definitely be out of the lede. Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  11:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Have changed my vote to delete. The new paragraphs made by Robinvp11 supercede the gain made by moving. Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  21:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete; it is already sufficiently covered in the sections on Causes and Creating a new constitution. I wrote the paragraph under discussion, so I have considered it from both sides :) Robinvp11 (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete from lede. There was American influence on the French Revolution, but not enough to merit inclusion in the lede. This is an issue of WP:DUE. As shown above, very few tertiary sources discuss American influence on the French Revolution. Nevertheless, there is discussion of this influence in some of the secondary literature, and it was real, albeit as one of many factors influencing the revolution. Some of the material from this paragraph could be incorporated into the "Causes" section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Move to Causes, for now. Please see my comments below. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is a vague general statement and we are then told that this was "quickly discarded". This does not merit a place in the lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment added the following notifications, per WP:APPNOTE:
 * Listed: at WT:POLITICS
 * Listed: at WT:MILHIST
 * Listed: at WT:FRANCE
 * Listed: at WT:European history
 * Listed: at WT:HISTORY. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks due weight in the lead (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Include or Move — The French were strong allies of the Americans during their revolution, and upon their return to France, who had its hopeful eyes on that revolution, they were fully inspired by the idea of independence, throwing off a monarchy and the freedoms it afforded, esp freedom of the press. During the few years before the actual French Revolution, the ideas of revolution and the American Constitution, et al, were widely discussed in French salons and covered in French journals across France. To think the American Revolution was simply greeted with a ho-hum attitude by the French, who fought for and defended the ideals it stood for, is to deny all the interchanges between the French and the Americans during the time in question. Several noted French scholars, along with others, cover these events, as outlined above, yet here at Wikipedia this advent seems as if it's being brushed off by some editors as if the idea was some whisper in a storm by historians. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Since I've been following this discussion for a couple of weeks now, I've managed to form an opinion. I believe that coverage of the American influence on the French Revolution is important to the article as a whole. I would like to see that coverage expanded and developed. however In the grand scheme of the French revolution, I don't think that the American influence on it is significant enough to include in the Lead. Not everything in an article this massive can be included there- and I think focusing on one country's influence- when many contributed to the era of revolution, is not due weight. Just my two cents. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Including this material so prominently in the lead gives too much weight to a relatively minor and somewhat disputed aspect of the topic. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete from lede, seems undue to have it directly in the lede, in the grand scheme of things-- the French Revolution was massive, so we have to choose what the most significant aspects are to include in the lede, and the American aspect doesn't seem to be that important. However, this should absolutely be discussed in the article somewhere, so no prejudice against moving, probably to causes. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete; covered appropriately in the article itself, while there is no compelling reason to single this aspect out in the Lead (while not including the influence of the Dutch "patriots", for example).Svejk74 (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete.  This speculating on relationship does not seem to be covered in the article so should not be in the lead per MOS:LEAD to summarize the major points of the article.  It is also a bit WP:OFFTOPIC of this specific revolution.   As a side-benefit, the lead currently seems overly long, so dropping a bit would improve that.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per due weight; see discussion on tertiary sources above. (Also agree that the current lead is too long). This article concerns a topic that has a vast literature, perhaps the largest of any topic in history. As Parent, it has various child articles such as Causes of... or Historiography of..., neither of which currently says anything about American influence (other than the war debt, already covered). Those articles would be the logical place to start adding such content, as their more limited topic scope would be more likely to support the content while still meeting the WP:DUEWEIGHT threshold. Mathglot (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Possibly move anything that isn't already in Causes to that section. Note that I am an inclusionist and started from an initial reaction that the overlap in personnel strongly implied influence. Two reasons for the vote:
 * 1) It is not mentioned in the French Wikipedia at all, and French history is meticulously documented and this would certainly apply to the country's creation myth. I realize that the American myth says otherwise and the truth is likely, as the text inartfully  says, "a mix". Also,
 * 2) This article itself contains only a very few sentences about this, which mostly say that the influence was more than zero but less than causal. If someone feels that this is wrong, the place to work on this is in the body, at least for now.
 * The lede is extremely long even without this paragraph. The entire article is way way too long and includes events not usually considered part of the Revolution, according to its own text. A lot of content really needs to be spun off to daughter articles and I'd even support a grand-daughter specifically about the men who were part of both Revolutions. But as of the current article, no, the intellectual background should not be in the lede, and possibly should move the the Causes section. Elinruby (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"The causes of the French Revolution are complex and are still debated among historians. Following the Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War,[5] the French government was deeply in debt. It attempted to restore its financial status through unpopular taxation schemes, which were heavily regressive. Leading up to the Revolution, years of bad harvests worsened by deregulation of the grain industry and environmental problems also inflamed popular resentment of the privileges enjoyed by the aristocracy and the Catholic clergy of the established church. Some historians hold something similar to what Thomas Jefferson proclaimed: that France had 'been awakened by our [American] Revolution.'6 Demands for change were formulated in terms of Enlightenment ideals and contributed to the convocation of the Estates General in May 1789. During the first year of the Revolution, members of the Third Estate (commoners) took control, the Bastille was attacked in July, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was passed in August, and the Women's March on Versailles forced the royal court back to Paris in October. A central event of the first stage, in August 1789, was the abolition of feudalism and the old rules and privileges left over from the Ancien Régime."
 * Keep. The second paragraph of the lede, which, following WP:GOODLEDE is supposed to cover material such as causes, influences, or origins, has been present in the article for several years, already containing a succinct and explicit mention of external influences, including from the Americans and the American Revolution. This is from :
 * There is no informational basis for taking a brief statement on external influences out of the lede, all the more so that such influences are mentioned in the body. While an editor may be unaware of such influences,, and would readily notice the deficiency in the opening. The lede, which was even longer in the past, has not once received complaints of being "too long". It currently only contains 3200 characters, and does not violate Wikipedia's guidelines of being reasonably commensurate with article length (which is almost 97000 characters, the lede being less than 1/30th of this). Further, this discussion was initially opened regarding two statements in the paragraph, not the paragraph itself. 021120x (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. 021120x wrote on my talk page requesting my input. Given that I helped write the paragraph in question, this feels a bit too much like WP:Canvassing for me to feel comfortable commenting in support. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. The key point of the paragraph is cited to just a single source, which states Historians have ascribed many origins and causes to the French Revolution, but they do not always clarify the distinction between the two categories ... Among the political and ideological causes of the French Revolution, one might consider its foreign roots, a subject about which little, if anything, has been written ... As far I know, however, no historian has emphasized the intense interactions among international patriots in the years before 1789 or researched their impact on the French Revolution.  Jourdan herself describes her focus on American influence as an obscure minority view; devoting an entire paragraph of the lead to it is absurdly WP:UNDUE.  Mentioning it briefly in the body as one of many competing theories for one of the innumerable influences on the French Revolution makes sense; but stridently declaring it in a full paragraph of the lead gives the impression that there is some overwhelming scholarly consensus that this was the intellectual origin of the French revolution, which is emphatically not the case.  Also note that the paragraph does not currently summarize any part of the lead - nothing in the body remotely supports its strident and weakly-sourced declaration that the intellectual origins of the Revolution came from a global network of European and American 'patriots'.  Again, it does not even accurately summarize Jourdan (who is careful to note that her view is obscure) - she is much more cautious and merely discusses American influence as one strand among many. --Aquillion (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and given that Jourdan's article has a grand total of two citations to it from other articles (one of which is from Jourdan herself), selecting this source among the thousands of others choices, seems like cherrypicking. Mathglot (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * As a argument for keeping the paragraph, and moving it to the 'Causes' section, it seems to me that in addition to the information sourced to the RS in the paragraph at issue, the existing 'Causes' might be fleshed out by sourcing scholars from the Annales school. All was not Parisian coffee houses, salons, and regional Parlements.
 * - As I recall, the first peasant revolts that historians connect with the French Revolution were in rural provinces in those same districts where veterans of Rochambeau's returning soldiers settled and raised families after their American service.
 * - Over the evolution of the article wp:due weight would tell, and the observation of connections to the American Revolution could gain a wider consensus for a paragraph in the article introduction. At that point, there would be substantial justification, not only from top-down intellectual history of philosophy, but also bottom-up social history of families in the countryside.
 * - Likewise, it would be interesting to note in the article any RS longitudinal analysis, where French historians have found the origins for voluntary cohorts to regiments organizing around Le Tricolore. Were they from the capital, regional centers, port cities, or rural districts; how many from where and in what sequence over the Revolution, then in the Napoleonic Wars? Who were the fathers, and what were the origins of the men commissioned as sergeants in the early regiments? 'Inquiring minds want to know.' - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As I've mentioned before, the connections are covered in more detail in the section on 'Creating a constitution'; maybe read that. Even those who argued long and hard for the inclusion of American influence in the Lede did not suggest the American Revolution was a Cause, so it doesn't belong in that section.


 * As I recall, the first peasant revolts that historians connect with the French Revolution.... I personally am unfamiliar with that argument but I'd certainly be interested in the Sources if you have them available;


 * Likewise, it would be interesting to note in the article any RS longitudinal analysis, where French historians have found the origins for voluntary cohorts to regiments organizing around Le Tricolore. Were they from the capital, regional centers, port cities, or rural districts; how many from where and in what sequence over the Revolution, then in the Napoleonic Wars? Who were the fathers, and what were the origins of the men commissioned as sergeants in the early regiments?


 * Preparing a detailed demographic breakdown of French regiments from 1789 to 1815, split by towns, regions and districts, with an analysis of the social origins and parentage of senior NCOs is certainly more work than this inquiring mind has time for. But no doubt you've already done this analysis for the American Revolutionary War, so you'll have a better idea; let me know if you need help.


 * Here's the website for the Service historique de la Défense, who hold all French military records going back to the end of the 16th century; probably the best place to find this kind of detail; https://www.servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr/en?lang=en Robinvp11 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Very good . This hour we have 4 delete altogether, 4 remove elsewhere, with more to come.  suggesting to fold information and sources to extend ‘Causes’, seconded by  (delete from lede),, .  -- To find a reference to influence from some returning French veterans of American Revolution campaigns, we have from Annie Jourdan, the American Revolution “affected not only the ideas but also the lives and experiences of many French citizens who fought alongside the insurgents”. I'll check for another.
 * - Causes of the French Revolution include “intense interactions among international patriots” in the years before 1789”, political and ideological causes. Jourdan mentions firstly America, itself derivative of the Scots and especially Montesquieu, but also Poland, Switzerland, the United Provinces, and Austrian Netherlands. American state constitutions were translated and circulating in French salons and press for six years prior to the French Revolution, and French ministers attempted reform to a “civilized monarchy” in the 1770s and 1780s. --- These foreign elements and factors did “not directly give rise to the Revolution, they were secondary challenges to the Old Regime”. The 1700s upper classes in the broader Atlantic community innovated the “Grand Tour”, and sophisticated readers in France had access to fashionable travelogues with accounts in French of governments and customs. In the press, there was wide circulation and reprinting of books, magazines, papers or pamphlets.
 * - At the 1787 invasion, most Dutch Patriots relocated . Those moving to France integrated into Genevan expatriot communities settling there since 1782. These supported Mirabeau. Following the Terror, French revolutionaries transitioned from a focus on civil innovation and coercive laws to forming a republican people by legislation, relying more on the role of habit and custom to educate and regenerate a French national culture. --- But these were not meant to imitate the Americans, merely emulate them by thinking about the principles and practice required to imagine radical change in France. In France, Scotland, America, and the Netherlands revolutionaries all had the same capacity for creation and invention. The “foreign influences were important models for emulation but never decisive”. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that per WP:RFC, it is not a vote at all; closure evaluation depends upon argumentation based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am in partial agreement. While this survey is sort of a vote, one consideration are guidelines and policies, but this idea is simply a general claim with noting that explains how the facts in question go against any guideline or policy. It could easily be argued that understating or ignoring the facts in question, covered by many notable sources, is not placing Weight where it is due. The facts  outlined in the survey should be the major consideration. . So far I'm only seeing general claims with little explanation. "Too much emphasis"? We are only talking about a couple of sentences in a rather long lede. The idea that American influence is not covered in most encyclopedias, generally written for high school students and such,  is probably the most superficial reason yet, considering all the French and other scholars who indeed cover the advent in question in books, historical journals and other history forums.  It seems that most of the facts surrounding the issue are being ignored by some editors.
 * Also, the lede paragraph in question which claims that, "However, the French quickly discarded the American Revolution as a reference point..."  is sourced by Rossignol, a French general during the French Revolution. There is no listing for this source in our Bibliography, and if there is such a source out there, it is a primary source and should not be used as a stand alone source, esp in the lede, and esp over a highly opinionated statement. The statement in question needs a 'citation needed' tag, should be sourced with at least two other scholarly sources, or it should be removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete It gives too much emphasis on what is ultimately not a universally accepted view amongst historians in the lede. The lede should summarize the article, and there isn't a comprehensive discussion of it in the article, so it should definitely be out of the lede. - Acebulf, 11:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There probably isn't any one major idea that is "universally accepted" among historians. In any case, nothing has been presented that substantiates the idea that American influence is a minority view. All that we've been handed thus far are comments about what a group of encyclopedias don't say -- while one of them indeed does mention the American involvement. Meanwhile, many notable sources have been offered, and linked to, covering the influence that the American Revolution had before and during the French Revolution. Not one source has been offered that explains why this was not so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is one factor that pretty much every historian agrees on: bankruptcy of the royal treasury after excessive expenditures in the American War of Independence and the Seven Years' War. After that, opinions begin to diverge, although the most common themes are rebellion of the lower classes against famine and fedualism, intellectual ferment resulting from the Enlightenment, resentment among the bourgeoisie of powerlessness, and other social and cultural factors. American influence is infrequently mentioned by historians as a major factor. See . Mathglot (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, that France almost went into bankruptcy by supporting the American Revolutionary War – that, along with famine, certainly didn't set a pleasant stage for the other factors involving class rebellion and such. Obviously the French had their own reasons, sometimes similar to that of the American colonists, for revolution. The French and the Americans also shared the ideals of the enlightenment, esp with figures like Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, Lafayette, et al, who were very outspoken publicly while in France. As for American influence, they couldn't have fermented the French Revolution on their own, but they did set a precedence of overthrowing a monarchy, one of a world power, no less, which was completely unheard of in Europe at that time, until the ARW had passed. As the French participated in that effort, they certainly were primed to pursue their own revolution upon their return to France, while the French populace had eyes on that conflict. As American newspapers lent supporting coverage before and during the French Revolution (albeit, some support waned during the reign of terror), while Jefferson, Lafayette, Franklin, et al, were widely admired by the French, and were also instrumental in bringing about the French Declaration ', the Assembly of Notables, and the National Assembly, it should be easy to see that American involvements were a significant contributing factor in terms of support and influence. As I've said all along, I have no desire to cover these things at length, but they certainly are due brief coverage, given all the sources, in the body of the text, and imo, we should at least lend a peep to this overall advent in the lede. I believe Robin's statement, sourced by a noted French scholar, does this more than adequately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * To use an English phrase, this is doing my head in. I've tried to state this clearly on various occasions, but either I've failed or people just aren't interested in anything that doesn't fit their world view. So.


 * The Lede is supposed to summarise the content of the article; arguing about what should be in the Lede is thus pointless unless it reflects the content. So far, I seem to be the only person who's been willing to work on that, and it's really not clear anyone has read the article.


 * As stated several times, the issue is not whether there was any American influence on the French Revolution, but whether it was so significant it warrants an entire paragraph of a Lede which is supposed to be no more than four. It doesn't get a mention in the French Wikipedia version and they should know.


 * I have asked this question directly six times and been ignored each time but here goes again. The same people who claim it needs inclusion in the Lede seem entirely happy with (for example) the total exclusion of any mention of British influence on the American Revolution, when every one of the Founding Fathers claimed to be following their example, when the 1689 Bill of Rights was specifically used as a model for the 1789 US version, was the basis of four or five US constitutional amendments and numerous elements of various US state constitutions.


 * Fine by me, but that makes it hard to claim demanding the inclusion of American influence here is simply on the grounds of accuracy. If you're curious, The Idea of Europe and the Origins of the American Revolution by DH Robinson makes an equally strong case the other way.


 * I've read (all) of the Jourdan article; quoting it doesn't tell me anything I don't know. The Marie Jeanne Rossignol reference was supplied by another (American editor); it's now in the Sources, I didn't previously bother because it wasn't clear it was being used.


 * One thing I learned updating this article is that the idea the cost of the American War bankrupted France and caused the economic conditions that led to Revolution is simply untrue. If you read the article, it explains why.


 * I also suggest reading the Ludwikowski article (also provided in the Sources). He says some Americans insist their Revolution caused the French, some French deny any influence whatsoever but both groups represent a small and extreme minority. He's an American legal professor, so.... Robinvp11 (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion continued
No one is advocating that there was no American influence whatsoever, or that the ARW was primarily the cause of the French Revolution. However, the ARW and American involvement did have a significant influence on the French Revolution, as it demonstrated to France, and the world, that throwing off a monarchy was not an unheard of and unobtainable goal, as I've explained. There are many sources, many by French scholars, that comprehensively cover the American involvement and its impact on the French revolutionary mindset. As such the article needs to better cover the American involvement before and during the French Revolution. This way, the statement in the lede will be better justified. With a little effort it's quite easy to find many sources that cover this idea. Below are three more.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Andress, 2015, The Oxford Handbook of the French Revolution, covers the American influence


 * — "The American War of Independence had a great effect on the kingdom of Louis XVI." p. 93
 * — "The Toulouse academy had launched a new competition (French journal) on the importance of the American Revolution. Jean-Baptiste Mailhe depicted the American Revolution as the 'triumph of politics and humanity". p. 94
 * — "Their revolt would be legitimate. The government had even allowed the French publication of the American Constitutions and give each citizen the opportunity to read that the people had the right to change their government and to be granted natural rights." p. 101
 * — "These publications celebrated the American fight against British despotism. The philanthropic societies implied a similar involvement. The Gallo-American society, created by Jacques Pierre Brissot intended to strengthen the bonds of friendship between France and the United States." p. 101


 * "One of the chief sources of inspiration for the deputes was the memorable precedent of the American Declaration of Independence." The French Revolution: From Enlightenment to Tyranny, Davidson, 2016, p. xxxiii


 * "In 1784, a literary and debating academy at Toulouse set as its prize essay question the importance of the American Revolution." Schama, 1990, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution, p. 48

The Americans were praised by the French during and after their revolution. The American constitutions were published and distributed across France. (See also, Mallet and Berstine, below.) The sentiment behind the ARW spilled over into France, as became evident in publications and newspapers across that country, and with the interchange between prominent French and American figures. There are simply too many facts, and sources, that exemplify the American involvement, and subsequent influence, for us to be brushing this off as being barely significant any longer. As was said several times, there's no need for lengthy coverage, but there is a need to briefly cover the events in question. This will make the lede statement more appropriate, which I hope is what we all want in terms of a well written and comprehensive article.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe that coverage of the American influence on the French Revolution is important to the article as a whole. I would like to see that coverage expanded and developed. however In the grand scheme of the French revolution, I don't think that the American influence on it is significant enough to include in the Lead. ... Nightenbelle (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * — Thanks for taking the time and sorting through these discussions. I'm in partial agreement.  The article can indeed use a little more coverage (and I do mean 'a little', for those of you who still have the impression that we are going to stuff the narrative with new sections and/or paragraphs), as the American revolutionary war was fundamental in changing the mindsets of not only France, but much of Europe, in that overthrowing or standing up to a monarchy was not some impossible or fantastic feat. The American revolution was a first for the Americas, and the French Revolution was a first for Europe, and at this point there can be no denying that the two revolutions were intimately connected – esp since France was involved in the American Revolution, where Lafayette and other notable Frenchmen returned to France fully inspired by the idea of a revolution that would lend a strong voice to the common citizen, not to mention freedom of the press and other such liberties. Given the involvement of figures like Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, etc, whose writings were published across France, along with the American Declaration of Independence, as well as the American constitutions, it would seem that the current statement in the lede is warranted and isn't anything that overshadows all the other topics in that sizeable lede. This would set the stage and put the entire article in historical context right from the start, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * as for inclusion in the Lead- I'm afraid we must just agree to disagree. :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * In response to, American influence on the French is substantiated indisputably on this page itself, by a cornucopia of historians and other academics. That the editor who worded the paragraph only chose to cite one of the abundance of references is irrelevant. Other references can be added. Also, the paragraph is not about "American influence", and interpreting it as such may reflect bias. It only addresses background. Rewording the paragraph is a simple remedy; there is no logical or rational basis for removing a paragraph on background from the article because it contains an undesired statement. Also, Jourdan very clearly described American influence as much more than 'an obscure minority view', which has already been covered earlier on this page. 021120x (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

A way forward?
The 2-step procedure for Introduction innovations
 * Two steps to add a new Introduction sentence or two . #1. Develop the article on the topic in the appropriate section in a few paragraphs. #2. Add the new element in the introduction by a) be bold unilaterally, then b) at a challenge, take it to Talk to work out a consensus.
 * So far we have a generous viewpoint voiced by and others here in varying degrees, to give the nod for some mention of the “American Revolution” in the Introduction, either as (a) the war fought to a successful conclusion as a prior example, or as (b) a part of the mutually shared intellectual history of the 1700s Atlantic community.
 * So, I will: Support  adding into the Causes section, two (2) paragraphs concerning alien factors contributing to the French Revolution: One (1) paragraph written on the topic of revolutionary republican intellectual history, accounts of the American war, and discussions of republican governance in the United Provinces, Switzerland and the United States. These may be gathered from the international sources evident in the content of reprinted books, pamphlets, newspaper articles, and correspondence among the French populace in the late 18th century.
 * - And one (1) paragraph written on the topic of the connections between the various native French pro-revolutionary groups before the Bastille and the several diplomatic missions of republics in Paris representing the Dutch Republic, Switzerland, the United States, and any other alien sources whose interests or predilections were compatible with the overthrow the French Ancien Régime.
 * After copyedit contributions have stayed in place a week, an editor might prompt a discussion here at Talk with a draft sentence or two to add into the introduction, imho. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , I agree with your first paragraph, and not much after that. I'm not persuaded that the two paragraphs you propose would be in compliance with WP:NPOV in a general article about the French Revolution. In a monograph ten or twenty times as large (not gonna happen at Wikipedia), I would perhaps agree with you. The key principle here, imho, is WP:DUEWEIGHT. I think the WP:BURDEN of proof would be on you, to show why you think this deserves that much space in this article.  Currently, the #Causes section of the article represents 3% (805 words, 5172 bytes) of the article, which feels about right. Looking at what tertiary sources have to say about causes of the French Revolution, adding two paragraphs to that section which are related to the United States (or Switzerland, or Holland) seems highly WP:UNDUE as it is not in accordance with the majority (or even the minority) of historical opinion on the subject.  Please see  above.
 * Otoh, the article Causes of the French Revolution as the child article of this section, is longer (27kb). In the context of a larger article on "Causes", I think the topics you want to add to this article, would be a much better fit there. In addition, given the vast literature on the subject, there is plenty of room for expansion of the "Causes" article, and treatment of some of the finer points of the origins and causes of the French Revolution; imho, that article should be considerably expanded, and your proposal should be added to it in the appropriate place at the appropriate time (still respecting DUE WEIGHT, of course). Mathglot (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds right to me. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Facts and sources to consider

 * "The outbreak of the American revolution roused the deepest interest in Europe. Volunteers from France poured over to America, to fight for the political ideals, about which they had for so long been dreaming, and the realization of which in the New World seemed to bring home conviction to the old." <Mallet, The French Revolution, p. 42>


 * "By 1783, there were in circulation two translations of the American state constitutions with their bills of rights which served as models for the French Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789. Moreover, the [American] Revolution had fired the imagination of, and made its imprint on, French thinkers." <Berstine, Jefferson and the French Revolution, p. 123>


 * "Benjamin Franklin, the American Ambassador, and the very embodiment of the new nation's simple virtues, became the most sought after man in Parisian society. Between 1775 and 1787, the public was deluged with writings on all aspects of America."<Doyle, 1988, Origins of the French Revolution, p. 94>


 * "The bold phrases of Thomas Paine's republican phamphlet, Common Sense, resounded throughout France. Franklin, in a letter, dated May, 1777, speaks of the passionate interest with which American affairs are followed in France." <The French Revolution: a political history, 1789-1804, p. 113. François-Alphonse Aulardp


 * Paine, Thomas, who through his influence on the American Revolution exerted a considerable influence on the genius of the French Revolution."<François-Alphonse Aulardp, 1910, p. 67>


 * "In 1784, Congress appointed Jefferson to represent the young American nation in France. Here he was regarded as the guiding spirit of American democracy. He was consulted by writers on philosophy and on politics. On his arrival he observed that the American Revolution had made a marked impact on Frenchmen. Noblemen and soldiers returning after the War of Independence spoke admiringly of Americans and of their free institutions."<Berstine, Jefferson and the French Revolution, pp. 122-123. >


 * "Jefferson followed the course of the [French] Revolution. He suggested and submitted a proposed charter to Lafayette and a desirable course of procedure for the Assembly of Notables. Lafayette arranged for a meeting of the leaders... <Paxton, 1988, p. 109>


 * "The American Revolution, which in its own time was the model of a revolutionary war, exerted an influence on the struggle of the European bourgeoisie against feudal absolutist regimes. Approximately 7,000 European volunteers fought in the ranks of the American army, including the Frenchmen the Marquis de Lafayette and H. Saint-Simon and the Pole T. Kosciuszko. During the Great French Revolution the insurgents made use of the organizational experience and revolutionary military tactics of the Americans." &lt;Bolshaya Sovetskaya Encyclopedia 3rd Ed>


 * "From the beginning of the war, Franklin enjoyed great popularity as the paragon of modern virtue; for instance, liberal aristocrats commissioned a sculpted bust of him to add to their collection of great men. Franklin and his admirers discussed the American Revolution and its democratic ambitions; indeed, American state constitutions had been translated and were circulating through salons and the press six years before the French Revolution. French ministers' attempts at reform in the 1770s and 1780s further encouraged these discussions."<Jourdan, Journal of the Western Society for French History, Volume 35, 2007>


 * American newspapers widely gave political and moral support to the French Revolution: "The National Gazette, the famous Jeffersonian paper and defender of the French Revolution, published a series of four articles under the title of "Cool Reflections on the French Revolution," between June 8 and 19, 1793..."<Hyslop, The American Press and the French Revolution of 1789, >


 * Before the fall of the Bastille, many revolutionary texts had thus reached the French public. The American documents were at that time the most influential...<Jourdan, Journal of the Western Society for French History, Volume 35, 2007>


 * "The King of France must now be sensible of his mistake in having intermeddled in the American war. It has come home to him."<McCarthy, The French Revolution, p. 126>


 * "They want an American Constitution, with the exception of a King instead of a President..."<Taine, The French Revolution, p. 119>


 * "From the day of its birth (French Republic) Americans welcomed their sister republic. Now there were two free nations; America no longer stood alone to face a hostile world. Collective security was essential to the preservation of democracy, and as early as 1791 the friends of Samuel Adams wrote to him of the importance of the successful outcome of the French experiment." <Link, 1965. Democratic-Republican societies, 1790-1800, p. 45>


 * , pp. 61-62


 * Andress, 2015, The Oxford Handbook of the French Revolution, covers the American influence


 * — "The American War of Independence had a great effect on the kingdom of Louis XVI." p. 93
 * — "The Toulouse academy had launched a new competition (French journal) on the importance of the American Revolution. Jean-Baptiste Mailhe depicted the American Revolution as the 'triumph of politics and humanity". p. 94
 * — "Their revolt would be legitimate. The government had even allowed the French publication of the American Constitutions and give each citizen the opportunity to read that the people had the right to change their government and to be granted natural rights." p. 101
 * — "These publications celebrated the American fight against British despotism. The philanthropic societies implied a similar involvement. The Gallo-American society, created by Jacques Pierre Brissot intended to strengthen the bonds of friendship between France and the United States." p. 101


 * "One of the chief sources of inspiration for the deputes was the memorable precedent of the American Declaration of Independence." The French Revolution: From Enlightenment to Tyranny, Davidson, 2016, p. xxxiii


 * "In 1784, a literary and debating academy at Toulouse set as its prize essay question the importance of the American Revolution." Schama, 1990, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution, p. 48


 * From Louis Madelin a noted French historian:  — ...the men who were to be the makers of the [French] Revolution were all to come into the world : Brissot in 1754, Lafayette in 1757...   — <Madelin, 1916, p. 14>  —  Madelin refers to Lafayette as one of the leaders of the revolution. "Nothing would be more interesting than to draw up a list of the leaders, from Lafayette to Santerre..."  — Madelin, 1916, p. 28.   —  "The bourgeois militia, which had completed its organization, forthwith laid hands on Lafayette and made him Commandant...”—  Madelin, 1916, p. 82>


 * "The men of Rochambeau's army too, had caught the infection, (American Revolution) had seen republicanism in war, the brave and capable commanding whatever their station in life ; and in that army were many rankers, held down by the Bourbon regime, who were soon to become the victorious generals of the French Republic. Again the constitutional documents of the Americans had been consulted, studied,—declarations of right, State constitutions. And all this tended towards republicanism." <Johnston, R.M., The French Revolution, 1909, pp. 110-111>


 * "Having settled the problem of feudalism, the Assembly now resumed the debate begun in July on a Declaration of the Rights of man and the citizen. The American Declaration of Rights of 1776 was in everyone's mind."<Furet, François, 1970, pp. 87-88>


 * "The liberal nobility had an important part to play in the new era. For anyone who kept a diary of the times the outstanding personality of 1790 must surely have been LaFayette, the 'Hero of Two Worlds', the noble who had fought in the American War of Independence and who in 1788 demanded that a National Assembly be convened; the man who was commander in Chief of the National Guard and the idol of crowds."<Furet, François, 1970, p. 109>   -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "As the crisis in France deepened, a growing number of citizens believed that American principles -- the right to take up arms against tyranny, equal political rights, no taxation without representation, and the superorrity of a republic over a monarchy -- were equally relevant in France.".<Ross, The French revolution, 2003, p. 15>


 * "The inspiration and content of the American and French declarations were the same. It was in fact with Jefferson that Lafayette discussed his project; the text that he presented to the Assembly on July 11, with accompanying letter. The influence of America is beyond question." <Georges Lefebvre, 2005, The Coming of the French Revolution, p. 212>


 * "By his [Benjamin Franklin's] prestige as both scientist and founding father of the American union, by the simplicity of his life in a rural house in Passy, he became one of the most popular figures in 1780s Paris, welcomed in both aristocratic and philosophical salons. ... Franklin had the constitutions of the American states translated and widely distributed in Paris." <Hazan, Eric,  2014, A People's History of the French Revolution, p. 296>


 * Condorcet - among many others - whose role would be so important between 1789 and 1793, shows the tremendous influence of America on the principles of the revolution in France. <Hazan, Eric, 2014, p. 30>






 * "The author Thomas Paine was closely linked with both the American and French revolutions. His book The Rights of Man was a response to a savage attack on the French Revolution written by the British statesman Edmund Burke. ... He hoped to see the establishment of a French Republic based on the American model."<Barber, 2005. p. 53,>


 * "While the French Revolution was a complex conflict with numerous triggers and causes, the American Revolution set the stage for an effective uprising that the French had observed firsthand. " <History.com, Marks, 2018, Essay>


 * "Work tying the American Revolution and the early Republic to the struggle over empires is extensive." <, Desan, 2011, p. 159>

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

'Causes' expansion

 * Don’t put the cart before the horse.  The 'Causes' section should be elaborated BEFORE expanding a passage in the Introduction. Do consider two moderating considerations for contributions and Introduction expansion, one a QUALIFICATION, and one a CAUTION.
 * (1) QUALIFICATION (context limit). Jourdan can be applied for two elements of historical context . Frame any reference to American contributions to European history among others in the Atlantic community and across traditional scholarly “eras”.
 * - (a) The American Revolution is intellectually derivative of the Scottish Enlightenment and its practitioners, from directly the ‘hands on’ by John Locke on the Royal Board drafting colonial constitutions, to Benjamin Franklin in his career subsequent to his humiliating ouster from London as a failed colonial lobbyist.
 * - (b) The Scottish Enlightenment is intellectually derivative of the writings and personal encounters with Jean-Jacques Rousseau. James Madison closed many discussions in the Federalist Papers on the authority of “the brilliant Montesquieu”. Two preeminent US Chief Justices, John Jay and John Marshall were Montesquieu acolytes; his thought still echoes in US federal courts from constitutional rulings and dissents.
 * (2) CAUTION: Contributions by Americans to the French have a history of being summarily dismissed. Even to fight for France in the Revolution as a high ranking officer with subsequent residence for ten years to qualify could not bring citizenship.


 * These included petitioners who were French-commissioned Colonels who were proven combat veterans in the service of France. John Skey Eustace of artillery in the east of France and light infantry in Belgium, was denied at the height of his military success, then became disillusioned. William Tate was sponsored by Citizen Genet to raise an American expatriate legion to invade Spanish Luisiana for France. On discovery, he fled the US from treason charges, and received a French colonel’s commission to command the failed French invasion of Ireland. After ten year’s residence to qualify for citizenship, he was denied.


 * - So I guess that’s all by way of saying that it is irrelevant if there may be shades of ethnocentrism on other-language pages. This is an online encyclopedia; the lingua franca on the internet is English. --- Therefore, as a matter of editorial policy, for English language Wikipedia articles related international affairs, no American political exceptionalism, realpolitik triumphalism, or cultural imperialism need apply. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph altered; Rfc now moot?
As the Rfc asks a binary question (keep/remove) a particular paragraph with specific content (listed in the Rfc statement itself above, and corresponding to paragraph 2 of the lede in revision 985758280 of 19:59, October 27, 2020) and that content has been changed, I suppose the Rfc is now moot, since all of the votes now correspond to something that doesn't exist anymore, and the Rfc should be closed? Adding User:Robert McClenon. I suppose one could attempt to alter the Rfc question to take changes into account, but that would also invalidate all votes to this point, so not sure where we go from here. This is basically the scenario I was afraid of, described at WP:DRN, in subsection WP:DRN, paragraph 4. Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what is meant by this. The lede sentence in question still exists. As was said before, this lede sentence, one sentence, seems appropriate given all the facts and sources presented thus far (more are forth coming). At the risk of chiding a number of editors, it seems almost ridiculous that we have involved ourselves in such belabored discourse over a sentence in the lede that summarizes all the events involving the French and Americans prior to and during the French Revolution. The American and French revolutions were sister revolutions that changed the western world. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought my comment about "paragraph 2 of the lede" (to quote myself) was clear, and I don't know how to make it clearer. If you are not sure what is meant by it, please see the Rfc statement at the very top of this section. On the other hand, I have no idea why you are bringing up the lede sentence, which is not part of this Rfc. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question, contained in the 2nd paragraph, was the real issue. — i.e. "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." — Meanwhile other parts of the 2nd paragraph are still in the lede. Sorry if this wasn't clear enough for you. In any case, part of the paragraph is gone, the sentence in question, so now it seems we have a lede that summarizes the revolution as something that had little to do with the world around it. i.e.No mention of the intellectual origins. Yet there's a lead statement that says, "As well as external enemies, France faced a series of internal Royalist and Jacobin revolts.." So it's okay to mention "external enemies" in the lede, but nothing about external friends. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of this Rfc, the "real issue" is not what you state it to be, but what the Rfc states it to be, which can be found in the Rfc statement. Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Intro edit and rationale

 * Concur: with, 19 October:
 * Concur: with 17 October: :


 * At the edit here, “copy edit Introduction - to 5 paragraphs - modify American influence statement, otherwise use Notes for narrative economy”. The text-to-Notes is not altered, nor are the footnoting. The Intro now reads,

-
 * The French Revolution (Révolution française ) began in May 1789 when the Ancien Régime was abolished in favour of a constitutional monarchy. Its replacement in September 1792 by the First French Republic led to the execution of Louis XVI in January 1793, and an extended period of political turmoil. This culminated in the appointment of Napoleon as First Consul in November 1799, which is generally taken as its end point. Many of its principles are now considered fundamental aspects of modern Liberal democracy.
 * 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. Between 1700 and 1789, the French population increased from 18 million to 26 million, leading to large numbers of unemployed, accompanied by sharp rises in food prices caused by years of bad harvests. Widespread social distress led to the convocation of the Estates General in May 1789, the first since 1614.
 * In June, the Estates were replaced by the National Assembly, which was given the task of creating a new constitution. It quickly passed a series of radical measures, including the abolition of feudalism, removal of regional Parlements, bringing the French Catholic Church under state control and extending the right to vote. The next three years were dominated by the struggle for political control, exacerbated by economic depression and social unrest. External powers like Austria, Britain and Prussia viewed the Revolution as a threat, leading to the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars in April 1792, further weakening the French economy.
 * Disillusionment with Louis XVI after his attempt to escape abroad in June led to the establishment of the First French Republic on 22 September 1792, followed by his execution in January 1793. In June, an uprising in Paris replaced the Girondins who dominated the National Assembly with a Committee of Public Safety under Maximilien Robespierre. This sparked the Reign of Terror. As well as external enemies, France faced a series of internal Royalist and Jacobin revolts; this led to the suspension of elections and creation of the Directory in November 1795. In November 1799, the Directory was replaced by the Consulate, which is generally viewed as marking the end of the Revolutionary period.
 * Many Revolutionary symbols such as La Marseillaise and phrases like Liberté, égalité, fraternité reappeared in other revolts, such as the 1917 Russian Revolution. Over the next two centuries, its key principles like equality would inspire campaigns for the abolition of slavery and universal suffrage. Its values and institutions dominate French politics to this day, and many historians regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history. }}
 * Notes


 * References


 * Sources


 * Schapentolk ---1996 *
 * Schapentolk ---1996 *
 * Schapentolk ---1996 *
 * Schapentolk ---1996 *
 * Schapentolk ---1996 *
 * Schapentolk ---1996 *
 * Schapentolk ---1996 *
 * Schapentolk ---1996 *
 * Schapentolk ---1996 *

That’s my two cents. I anticipate additional edits on the contribution. But I’ll await the next Request for Comment to respond further. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you replace the long section of small text copying your version of the lead onto the Talk page above, with an article permalink instead? The lead may change again, and nobody will know where this came from or if it's even an accurate copy of anything. Article history won't change, and is verifiably correct. I'm forbidden by WP:TPO from altering your contribution, so could you please remove everything from your post above between the words, "The Intro now reads,..." and "That's my two cents", and replace it with: " ", which will generate: The Intro now reads like this, in revision 986279433‎.  Also, part of your change was to alter the lead content which is the matter under discussion in the Rfc in the previous section, which you participated in. So what's up with that? Mathglot (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I will comply with your use of the 986279433‎ convention here. I'm always learning new things about Wikipedia conventions that improve my participation.
 * - (1) The expression, At the edit here, may link the reader to the edit. I'll post this here to double check that it still works; the 'Show preview' feature indicates that it does. (2) Providing editors with a search term from the edit summary allows for another ready access on the Article Page history tab: I posted here at talk for a second reference point, “copy edit Introduction - to 5 paragraphs - modify American influence statement, otherwise use Notes for narrative economy” . Nothing is lost, no need for condescension or panic. However,
 * - (3) The Mathglot solution is much more elegant, and I want to use it in the future. For reference, how do I find the copy-paste number 986279433 to generate 986279433‎? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Responded to (3) on your Talk page. Mathglot (talk)

Rationale for the 986279433‎ post

 * (1) After over 50 days of deliberation, and three kinds of Wikipedia appeals forums and formats that I am not familiar with concerning their sequencing or authority, I am following the lead and I mean to reinforce the example of Robinvp11, agreed to in the post two days ago,
 * - This page after 50 days shows seven (7) for delete a phrase that has been altered before my contribution, one (1) for "move" and one (1) for "include or move" -- the issue-initiator seems amenable to collaborative reconciliation on the point, or in his own words, "include or move".
 * (1) But not one of the four or five (4-5) administrators involved in one way or another to date has taken any action on the consensus that now embraces every participant.
 * - I have not a clue of how to proceed as an administrator, but two months is sufficient for a reasonable wikipedia editor to formulate a wp:bold contribution in wp:good faith, after nearly two-months deliberation. And now, I'll just take a little wp:wikibreak on this page for a bit.
 * (2) My contribution does NOT substantively in any way " alter the lead content". (a) It places a detail into a Note of interest in American history, adjacent to a larger point about the Atlantic community as it relates to the French Revolution in that article's Introduction. (b) The Talk presentation highlights the non-compliant Schapentolk-1996 reference without a HarvRef in the 'Sources' section.
 * - (c) It places the wp:error into a Note for future cleanup. As showed, the high-finance national-debt was NOT the burden on the 92% who were peasants that led to starvation and discontent, it was the increasing seigneurial levies . (For the first time I understand why so many would support the Terror for so long. 'The man who starved my children should die, and likewise, his children.' - Still not "a good thing", but I understand for the first time, sincere thanks to all here.) --- while the contribution fashioned an introduction of five (5) paragraphs per wp:guidelines without altering previous text or sources. What's up with that?
 * (3) I expect someone here will determine that I am an interloper-foreign-alien as they say in France, and the entire contribution will be deleted as "NOT INVENTED HERE", as the provincials say in townships of less than 10,000 across America. I've lived there, I personally know of what I speak. And now, I really am going to take a little wp:wikibreak from this page for a bit. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding (2), your change altered the paragraph which is the topic of discussion in this Rfc. I don't know if there's a guideline about this, but typically editors are encouraged not to edit content in the article that is under discussion in an open Rfc, and it's common to undo any such edit, even if properly sourced. But, you're a ten-year editor; surely you know this? Adding . Mathglot (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am happy to defer to you in this matter. Please do now take appropriate corrective action to properly remediate my mistake in view of the ongoing RfC. Thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No worries. There were two such; I believe already fixed one of them, and  the other, so thanks to both for their interventions. Mathglot (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Dispelling notions
To further dispel the notion that a significant American involvement and influence is mostly an American POV and/or a "minority view", a quote from yet another noted French historian, François Mignet, is presented below, which definitively and clearly outlines the idea that American involvement was a significant factor during the years before and during the French Revolution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The United States of America, at the time of their independence, had set forth in a declaration, the rights of man, and those of the citizen. This will ever be the first step. A people rising from slavery feels the necessity of proclaiming its rights, even before it forms its government. Those Frenchmen who had assisted at the American revolution, and who co-operated in ours, proposed a similar declaration as a preamble to our laws. <Mignet, pp. 61-62>

To further exemplify the French-American connection, Link, Eugene Perry, writes:
 * From the day of its birth (French Republic) Americans welcomed their sister republic. Now there were two free nations; America no longer stood alone to face a hostile world. Collective security was essential to the preservation of democracy, and as early as 1791 the friends of Samuel Adams wrote to him of the importance of the successful outcome of the French experiment. <Link, 1965. Democratic-Republican societies, 1790-1800, p. 45>

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC prematurely closed?
, You once mentioned that an RFC was going to run for 30 days. There's nothing to indicate here in Talk that the RFC was closed, while one editor, Robinvp11, went ahead and removed the sentence in question. The edit history for that edit reads:
 * The consensus on the RFC is to remove the second paragraph from the Lede, not keep bits of it..

This is exactly what has occurred, as one of the sentences from the former 2nd paragraph (i.e. "Between 1700 and 1789, the French population increased ...") still remains. Another editor recently said:
 * Let's keep in mind that per WP:RFC, it is not a vote at all; closure evaluation depends upon argumentation based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The only "argumentation" put forth for removing the sentence in question were empty claims about due weight, largely based on what some encyclopedias didn't say, with no actual "argumentation" to support its removal. Not one scholarly source was presented that outlined why such a statement wasn't significant enough for the lede. Meanwhile dozens of French and other scholars were presented supporting the idea, but were categorically ignored by some editors. Isn't consensus supposed to be based on principles? None were presented. Due weight is supposed to be established by considering the facts in question and by the number of sources that cover them, not by a raw vote.
 * Due-Weight: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. (Emphasis added).

More than enough notable sources were presented to establish weight for the American involvement. Thus far what we have is a rushed consensus that goes against WP policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as you can still see the orange Rfc box at the rfc, it is not closed. As of this comment, it is still there, which means the Rfc is still open. Mathglot (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet the statement in question was removed from the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, I hadn't seen that before, and I support your restoration of that paragraph.
 * , The rfc is still open, and there is no consensus on the rfc until it is closed and evaluated. Rfcs run for 30 days; can you hold off making changes like this one until after it is formally closed (the entire discussion will change color and be boxed)? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Another editor made substantial changes to the second paragraph on 30 October, which I assumed had been cleared by other editors (I avoid looking at this TP, since I'm bored of having to read the same arguments). I have now restored the original second paragraph.


 * I read your comment above with interest: At the risk of chiding a number of editors, it seems almost ridiculous that we have involved ourselves in such belabored discourse over a sentence in the lede that summarizes all the events involving the French and Americans prior to and during the French Revolution.


 * Let me clear this up; not almost ridiculous but utterly and totally ridiculous. We have seven editors who agree it should be deleted from the Lede and one who refuses to accept that consensus. Before commenting on others, perhaps count the number of contributions you have made to this "belabored discourse", which closely mirrors the 'Mercenaries v Auxiliaries' debate on the ARW. What might you need to change to avoid a repeat? Robinvp11 (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No worries; letting the Rfc run its course will resolve all this one way or another. Idem, wrt to your comment below at 17:23, 1 Nov. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC Still Running, and WP:AN
The RFC is still running, and should run until 27 November, at which time a bot will guillotine it, and then an autopsy can be performed. It appears that we are in agreement that the RFC is still running and will run until 27 November. It should more generally cover whether there should be a paragraph similar to the paragraph in question, about American influence, in the lede.

I have posted a note to WP:AN requesting administrative attention, but no specific action. If there are any other content issues, we can resolve them with more RFCs. RFCs run for 30 days unless withdrawn. Is that understood? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Fine by me, although we seem to have seven editors who want it deleted or maybe moved elsewhere, versus one who doesn't. The adult thing to do would be for that one person to say 'I don't agree, but I'm the minority, so ok.' Any chance of that? Robinvp11 (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The "adult" thing to do would be to not evade, but rather face, the points submitted to the discussion, rather than to claim a consensus based on an evasive raw vote. I've always gone along with consensus, and will, should the RFC be resolved by a raw vote alone – but when there are (many) viable points to consider, and unresolved issues still remaining, they should be addressed honestly before the RFC is closed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Arguments to keep are being ignored
Robin, let's be reminded that I'm not the one who initiated this issue. The discussion goes on mostly because some editors refuse to even acknowledge that there are many notable sources, including several well noted French scholars, who have covered the American involvement involving significant events and have established weight. I've mentioned that French notables fully inspired by the ARW returned to France with the idea of civil liberties and revolution in their minds. -- No comment. It was pointed out that Jefferson and Lafayette were involved drafting the French Declaration, along with organizing the National Assembly. -- No comment. It was mentioned that the influential Franklin was widely admired by the French and worked along side notable French revolutionary writers like comte de Mirabeau. -- No comment. It was mentioned that the U.S. Declaration and various US Constitutions were widely published across France. -- No comment. It was mentioned that U.S. newspapers followed and lent political and social support for the French revolution. -- No comment. It was mentioned that American revolutionary thought was published in journals across France. -- No comment. It was also mentioned that these things are not exclusively an American POV as was first asserted. -- No comment. I've listed dozens of sources for editors to evaluate in this so called discussion and all I've gotten in return, overall, are empty claims about Due-weight, with no comments on the excerpts I've provided. Not one. Since you've mentioned that my contributions are among the largest, now you have a comprehensive reason as to why. This RFC by and large has ignored virtually all points of contention and is little more than a forum to cast a raw vote. All I've seen in terms of opposing arguments are comments about what a few encyclopedias didn't say and unsubstantiated claims about Due-Weight, in the face of all those sources. Robert McClenon was right to initiate another discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard. Maybe this time the same editors will not shy away from the points that have been outlined here and offer some arguments based on what reliable sources 'do' say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * We're not ignoring anything. You haven't made your point well enough to convince people. You have completely ignored WP:UNDUE, which everyone except you agrees applies here. Either find a way to address that or accept that we're not convinced instead of accusing everyone other than yourself of impropriety. Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  12:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not responding because (a) you're saying the same thing over and over and over and over, often quoting sources I've already read (in their entirety, not just bits) and (b) you think you're right, everyone else is wrong, nothing anyone can say will change that. I find that level of self-belief somewhat disturbing, but hey... You clearly think this pointless debate is a good use of time, I don't. Robinvp11 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Acebulf : On the contrary, it seems you are ignoring Due-Weight, which explicitly indicates... "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." (emphasis added) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your "no you" argument is not convincing. The due weight needed for the lede is tertiary sources talking about it plainly. Before this was added, it wasn't even in the article. This was my original point, and I don't believe it has been sufficiently addressed. You can disagree, but don't go around claiming that we're being improper just because you don't get your way. Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  23:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Acebulf - You're repeating the same claim over and over. Show us the policy that says we must use tertiary sources for the lede. Reliable Sources: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible". (emphasis added) As for your not so subtle personal attack – no, this is not some shallow issue about someone not getting their way, it's about recognizing the events covered in the prevalence of reliable sources, and abiding by Due-Weight policy, as was previously outlined just above, in full view of your response here, and addressing valid points presented in a discussion. Thank you. Meanwhile you continue to avoid making comment on any of the items mentioned. For example, you prefer encyclopedias, written by company editors, over French scholars? At least five have been presented here in Talk, one of them introduced by Robin. Along with all the other things you haven't commented on, you have stayed clear of that topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Robin : When I repeat something it's mostly because I'm facing the same empty claims, over and over and over, with no explanation.  Per your personal attack, my "self belief" is based on the facts, as covered in reliable sources, and I've produced dozens at this point. I've seen no comments from you, or anyone, about coverage by noted French scholars, US newspapers widely supporting the French Revolution, US Declaration and Constitution widely published across France, Franklin's involvements, Jefferson's and Lafayette's efforts in drafting the French Declaration and organizing the National Assembly, inspired French notables returning to France after fighting in the ARW, etc, so indeed these things have been ignored in what is supposed to be a forum for discussion, not empty claims. And to repeat, you have not provided one scholarly source which discounts these events. For example, is there a source that says, in so many words, that while the US Declaration and Constitutions were being published across France, few people paid attention to them? Again, all you're doing is falling back on an empty vote with nothing to substantiate it. Hard to sit still for that sort of thing. Sources please. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Gwillhickers - Why do you think that if restating your position four times is not persuasive, restating it a fifth time will be persuasive? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not taken a position on the RFC. What I am saying on your part, User:Gwillhickers is something that I have seen before, which seems to be the idea that if you are in the minority, it just means that you need to keep presenting your view.  I am sure that there is at least one time in the history of Wikipedia that it worked, but this doesn't seem to be the very rare case.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, points are repeated when they are met with the same empty claims about Due-Weight, personal attacks, etc, – ignored and walked over with unresponsive talk. I've even asked for sources that write off the events in question as inconsequential in terms of weight, with an explanation as to why. That also seems to have been ignored. I'm still in the process of adding new sources and excerpts that demonstrate that this issue is widely covered, and not just by American sources. These issues need to be addressed fairly. No one has done so, as was just outlined above – and now it seems this RFC will be decided on a simple vote – facts, dozens of sources and Due-Weight policy be damned.(?) Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers said above,

Perhaps you are right after all. With nine editors responding as of this date, and all of them ignoring the points of contention as if by some nefarious (even prearranged?) purpose, I can think of only one possible explanation. It must be the CABAL. Mathglot (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to get editors to squarely address the various topics involving the American involvement and influence as outlined in numerous sources. Your attempt at humor as a means of skirting that effort at this point comes off sort of typical. I've made no inference that there was some sort of conspiracy, or CABAL involved, but was merely stating a fact that these issues have not been addressed. While you're having your laugh, can you show us where you have addressed issues involving the number of notable French historians, new and old, who have covered the topics in question, and that they present us with strong evidence that the idea of American influence is not just an American POV, as I was once told? Have you or anyone else even commented about the US constitutions and Declaration of independence being published and embraced across France? Lafayette's and Jefferson's involvements?   Paine?  Franklin? etc, etc, As you once stated,  "Let's keep in mind that per WP:RFC, it is not a vote at all; closure evaluation depends upon argumentation based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines." Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC) ( emphasis added )   I concur, which is why I have emphasized these items.     * WP: Due-Weight: "In determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." ( emphasis added )     * WP: Reliable Sources: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible". ( emphasis added ) We should be in agreement, that the RFC should not be resolved on the basis of a simple vote, but on the basis of "argumentation" and the viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not over how many editors agree or disagree. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Have you or anyone else even commented about the US constitutions and Declaration of independence being published and embraced across France? Lafayette's and Jefferson's involvements?


 * Apologies to anyone who has actually read the article, because you already know this but it is discussed in 'Causes' and 'Drafting the 1791 Constitution.' So yes.


 * The RFC is not about whether American influence should be mentioned at all (it is) but whether it is so significant it deserves inclusion in the Lead. Which is another thing entirely.


 * There are separate articles on the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the Constitution of 3 May 1791, the French Constitution of 1793 and Constitution of the Year III; you can add all the detail you want on the different factors influencing each of these. Should you wish. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've indicated several times, (1, 2, 3, etc) the discussion has centered around the idea of Due-Weight in regards to whether a lede statement, i.e. "...accelerated by the American Revolution.", be included. To this end, many topics and sources have been presented to establish this weight, which at this point is undeniable, given the events in question and all the notable sources that cover them. Don't appreciate your effort to say I've been doing anything but trying to establish weight that would allow a statement in the lede. Please save your apologies for your own behavior. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources continued
Below is more definitive coverage about the American influence by yet another noted French historian, Georges Lefebvre.
 * "The inspiration and content of the American and French declarations were the same. It was in fact with Jefferson that Lafayette discussed his project; the text that he presented to the Assembly on July 11, with accompanying letter. The influence of America is beyond question." <Georges Lefebvre, 2005, The Coming of the French Revolution, p. 212> -- Gwillhickers (talk), November 4, 2020 (UTC)


 * And yet the sentence immediately succeeding this states "But this is not to say that without America the French declaration would not have seen the light", going on to explain why. This is not "definitive coverage".


 * It's also worth pointing out this refers only to the Declaration, not the Revolution itself.Svejk74 (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence in the above excerpt clearly makes the comparison between the two declarations, in relation to the National Assembly. That's a very definitive and telling example, the tip of a very large ice-berge if you will. You seem to be trying to suggest that there was no American influence involved anywhere else. The French Declaration, like the American Declaration, were the driving social and political forces behind both revolutions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "By his [Benjamin Franklin's] prestige as both scientist and founding father of the American union, by the simplicity of his life in a rural house in Passy, he became one of the most popular figures in 1780s Paris, welcomed in both aristocratic and philosophical salons. ... Franklin had the constitutions of the American states translated and widely distributed in Paris." <Hazan, Eric, 2014, A People's History of the French Revolution, p. 296>
 * Condorcet - among many others - whose role would be so important between 1789 and 1793, shows the tremendous influence of America on the principles of the revolution in France. <Hazan, Eric, 2014, p. 30>

I will continue to be adding facts and sources for consideration as I find them, but as said, the debate for me is over. All that is asked is that policy be observed. — WP: Due-Weight: "In determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." ( emphasis added ) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Bowing out
As there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel trying to get editors to reconsider an inclusion for a lede statement on American involvement, I believe it's time for me to bow out of the debate. I truly felt that if enough events and notable sources were presented that this might convince some editors that the American Revolution was significant enough, and not just an "Americano-centric claim", to mention with one statement in the lede. In any case, I appreciate that some editors are willing to better cover these things in the body of the text. As I've said before, I have no desire to see a new section or paragraphs covering the American involvement prior to and during the Revolution. Keep well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole lede is absolutely too large. And thus weight is to be weighted for a largely shortened lede, and not for an even larger one. Moreover, it is strange to ignore the following fact: the American events were top and foremost an experimental massive proof that people can win over oppression. Everything else is only anecdote. Pldx1 (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Lede
Pldx1 — Thank you for your opinions about "experiments" and "anecedote". As I've said, I've bowed out of the debate over inclusion of the lede statement in question. Most likely it will be removed, regardless if the lede is twice as small, or twice as large. This is about the lede as a whole. I don't see the lede as being too long, given the size of this high-traffic and major subject article, which involves many topics that are lede worthy. Compare the ledes in other major subject articles such as Napoleon, Battle of Waterloo, Napoleonic Wars, American Civil War, American Revolutionary War, French Revolutionary Wars, etc. The length of this lede is smaller proportionately and is nothing unusual. I am opposed to arriving at the article length, and lede length, by using math. Good writing involves comprehensive coverage and leaves out no major details and presents the subject in context. If there are, for example, 20 major topics in the article, we should have 20 summery statements in the lede. We don't trim the lede simply because someone feels it's too long. Given that many (most?) readers only read the lede, and perhaps one or two sections of interest, it's important that the lede gives them something more than a minimalized stack of sentences. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)