![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This may seem insignificant, but perhaps at the top of the page there should be a picture? Wikipedia France's picture is pretty good. It is Louis XVI wearing the citizens cap with the tricolor as the background? Check it out here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9volution_fran%C3%A7aise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs09985 ( talk • contribs) 08:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I cut the following as uncited and dubious:
One of the many effects of the French Revolution was the influence that it had on the famous German philosopher, Neumann. One of the effects that it had on him is that it helped him to develop his theory of the dialectic.
I have no idea who this "famous German philosopher Neumann" is supposed to be; the concept of dialectic, of course, goes back to the Greeks, but in its modern sense it is generally traced to Hegel. So either something here needs a great deal of clarification or, as I suspect, this is nonsense. - Jmabel | Talk 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There was a listing for
The ISBN is invalid; "Montesque" is presumably a typo for "Montesquieu"; all online references seem to duplicate the misspelling, which suggests that they are all mirrors of one another. I am taking it upon myself to delete this, and it should not be restored without some evidence that such a book actually exists. - Jmabel | Talk 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add an external link to an Open Univeristy course ( http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=1515)made available under Creative Commons licence. Can you let me know if you are happy for me to do this?-- Jinky32 12:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The Top page is very, Very difficult to understand, and needs MAJOR cleanup. Downatball5432 14:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC) This crucial sentence about the causes of the Revolution is badly formed and unclear:
"Historians disagree about the political and socioeconomic nature of the revolution. One interpretation is that the old aristocratic order of the Ancien Régime succumbed to the ambitions of a rising bourgeoisie, influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, and allied with aggrieved peasants and wage-earners in the towns, particularly Paris and Lyon. Another interpretation sees various aristocratic and bourgeois attempts at political and economic reform spinning out of control and coinciding with popular movements of the new wage-earning classes and the provincial peasantry, but see any alliance between classes as contingent and incidental."
It's not clear in the above passage what clauses refer to what, and key terms are needlessly vague. What does it mean to "succumb to the ambitions" of the bourgeoisie? They went along with them, or they were destroyed by them? It's unclear. "...influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment"--grammatically this could refer to either the Ancien Regime, or the bourgeoise. Same thing with "allied"--who was allied with whom in this sentence? "Another interpretation sees"? "Sees" is not the best word choice. "Aristocratic and bourgeois attempts"--are these shared attempts, or opposed ones? "Spinning" and "coinciding" present awkwardly mixed metaphors. Someone really needs to rewite these sentences. ThaddeusFrye 20:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Tried to fix this. Aldrichio 14:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Currently, this article states that the time period of the revolution was from 1789 to 1815, which would include the eras of the Consulate and First Empire. Most other writings that I have encountered on the subject say that the revolution lasted from 1789 to 1799, ending with the fall of the Directory. Can anyone say anything in support of the view that the Consulate and First Empire were parts of the revolution? If not, then I think the article should be changed.
Further to the above point, see Anthropologie du nom (by Badiou's cohort Sylvain Lazarus), pp. 220-224, for a succinct account of the political significance of periodisation in the work of Aulard, Mathiez, Lefebvre and Soboul. As Lazarus' and Badiou's work indicates, the problem of demarcation is an extremely significant one here, and deserves to have at least a short passage devoted to it. Shankspony ( talk) 14:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The anti-democratic fervor was falling away from the enlightenment by the time that the revolution occurred with the main anti-democracy philosophers were dead ( Voltaire and Baron d'Holbach for example). Read the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and it reads as much more a paean to democracy and citizenship (especially citizenship) than to individuality. Jvbishop 16:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Nat.tang, if you say that France was not a democratic as not everyone was allowed to vote and you believe in the modern universal suffrage, i'm ok with that. But tho, you could add that Athens and the greeks cities were not democratic too, either the roman republic too... Actually, it was democracy at the beginning, as the Enlightments' philosophers imagined it, however it's true to add the revolution felt into a authoritarian cycle just after. Remember too that at the beginning, this revolution didn't want to destitute or kill the king, they just wanted to change about the absolute monarchy. 90.9.154.60 ( talk) 23:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Only 18,000 killed in the reign of terror? I think not. By 1794, in Paris alone, the average was closer to 800 a month! By the Festival of the Supreme Being, the number of killings was already in excess of 80,000 in the whole of France.
Refer to the History Channel International, which has recently aired a documentary that includes such comment from many notible professors of French history.
This unsigned comment was left by 69.135.178.138 ( talk) and formatted by Jvbishop
This article is very detailed and precise, but only mentions women's contributions to the Revolution once. More should be added! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.141.3.46 ( talk) 23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
The Roman Catholic Church, the largest landowner in the country, levied a harsh tax on crops known as the dîme which while it annedated the crowns tax increases
Anyone have any idea what this should say?
I know that many people were killed during the reign of terror on the slightest suspicion of opposing the Republic. Why then, did so many members of the Bourbon family living in France survive? Wouldn't the republicans have had all of them executed to avoid the risk of a King being restored? Emperor001 14:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
--
I've jsut been doing some revision and I think that the explanation could be that they either fled the country and then returned (Flight of the emigres) or went into hiding in the countryside where radicalism was less prevelant than in Paris (see Thermidorian reaction for counter-revoltionary action) and the major cities where the grip of the Sans-culottes was lessened. There are certainly more explanations for this abnormality but here are a few just to throw into the pot.
-- Samnutter3212 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The following is listed in the See also section:
A Tale of Two Cities - A novel by Charles Dickens
If that is included, shouldn't other major works set in the French Revolution also be mentioned? For example, The Scarlet Pimpernel series by Baroness Orczy. Otherwise, why is A Tale of Two Cities mentioned as though it's non-fiction?
- Elin
In the last paragraph of text under the heading: "National Constituent Assembly (1789–1791) ==
Storming of the Bastille", it says ...
"In rural areas, many went beyond this: some burned title-deeds and no small number of châteaux, as part of a general agrarian insurrection known as "la Grande Peur" (the Great Fear)."
Does this mean that not a small number of châteaux were burned, or should the "no" be simply changed into an "a" or just change the whole sentence to:
"In rural areas, many went beyond this: some ransacked the châteaux of the nobles, burned documentation recording feudal obligations, or compelled those nobles they found in residence to renounce their feudal rights, as part of a general agrarian insurrection known as "la Grande Peur" (the Great Fear)."
OneStooge 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
'monarcy' appears a few times.
Bennybutler 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Think this should be nominated for page of the day?-- § Eloc § 02:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection was removed by User:WJBscribe, who has removed semi-protection from all these articles recently. After removing protection from King Arthur, i5 October, this administrator did not check back to see whether a torrent of vandalism had been unleashed by this action. It had been. I shall simply remove French Revolution from my Watchlist. -- Wetman ( talk) 04:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
They are not here... The one who put the "Historical Analysis" there did not put instead "Legacy" there. The legacy is something that is left by the Revolution. And that Russian Revolution of 1917, as that section indicated is what has been taken from the French Revolution.
NOTE:The information put on the latter part of introduction of the page is not enough to see the other legacies of the Revolution. - Pika ten10 ( talk) 07:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not Robert Sobel, it's Robert Soboul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.106.137 ( talk) 18:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This is stupid. Why can't I edit any pages? Allexey79 ( talk) 06:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi my names Tyler im a middle school student and i come here for info in mostly W.studies papers . my teacher wants title page on clip art on our papers. i would really appreciate it if you could have a chapter with pictures for the topics on this site. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.192.215 ( talk) 20:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This sentence fragment left me scratching my head:
Who the hell is Calonne? He is never mentioned before this. In fact that whole section is pretty hard to understand. 24.174.30.146 ( talk) 04:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks for this entry. It is interesting, which is a feat for some writers of history.
Under the "Women s March on Versailles" section, there is a line "Along with this crowd is Jackie Mangano who was picked up by Travis Walstrom the Time Traveling Assassin who brought her to the present day. Today they live in wealth from his deeds to society[citation needed]. " Please remove this obvious vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.134.163 ( talk) 18:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I searched Wiki for 1st 2nd 3rd Estates and found no correct match. So I went to Google and found this info (link) via French Revolution. Someone in the know, could you set the search to include 1st 2nd 3rd likeas First Second Third. Thanks in advance. Greg0658 ( talk) 14:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know what the " standard work" is (if any) on the French Revolution? -- Ludvikus ( talk) 13:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A recent change suggested that the collapse of the aristocrats aggrieved the peasants rather than they succumbed to peasants who were aggrieved. I don't think this is correct, have I made a mistake on the rollback? BananaFiend ( talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Many historians state that the revolution began before 1789, Wright says that it began as aristocratic clash with the monarchy in 1787 and led on to the events of 1789... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.196.213 ( talk) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk about Robespeirre bringing tranny to France. And unlessing totalitarism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.62.45 ( talk) 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The caption for the picture of the declaration of the rights of man says that it is the declaration of human rights. Clearly the declaration was sexist and was not what we would call true human rights today. 60.242.186.33 ( talk) 02:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The declaration pictured is not "the declaration of the rights of man". It is the "Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen". See http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homme for the meaning of "Homme".
Breandán Dalton ( talk) 11:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to have at least a sentence or two about the Counter-Revolution in this article. Kaldari ( talk) 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article. Originally, I was only going to move it to the the end of the section, but it needs quality improvements. For one thing, it's generic - like a pamphlet. Secondly, it's a little anachronistic, even in its simplicity. The reasons listed in the article as is are certainly not pro-monarchy, they're better thought out and delivered, and they're more accurate and relevant. If you want to make a case for socialism in France in the late 1700's, that should still go in a special section/subsection devoted to it.
BTW: is there really that much disagreement about the repetition in history of: people living under terrible conditions and an indifferent, inept government leading to violence and revolution; or is that a standard recipe for tensions and instability? Blablablob ( talk) 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yet another interpretation asserts that the revolution resulted when various aristocratic and bourgeois reform movements span out of control. According to this model, these movements coincided with popular movements of the new wage-earning classes and the provincial peasantry, but any alliance between classes was contingent and incidental.
Since I'm a new member I am not permitted to edit this protected page but I wanted to make a request. I found a creditable source of France's financial circumstances, they actually had 4 billion livres of debt (80 % of GNP), with a budget deficit of 100 million livres. Here is the source, third paragraph: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/63.3/potofsky.html. It should be changed to more accurately depict France's financial situation. I'm pretty sure the link will work, but my college pays for a subcription so I'm not positive.
Thanks,
RoberttheKingmaker ( talk) 21:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Greetings everyone: I propose we begin a rewrite of this article, in order to create a better read. A subject of this magnitude deserves the best, and I'd like to get momentum behind a substantial improvement drive. I am going to begin editing shortly; please feel free to revert any of my edits if you don't agree: we can discuss. Is there anyone else that would like to help? Aux armes, citoyens. Lazulilasher ( talk) 18:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I unprotected this article, as I am attempting to improve it. I found it disingenuous to have the "article needs improvement" tag on w/ semi-protect on as well. I've got the page on my watchlist, and it will be my main editing area for the time being. If vandalism becomes too significant, I will re-protect. Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 23:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I made some minor updates of the page, but here are a few personal additional commments:
+ one question : you use "British english" (the one I studied) or "American english" (the one I use now) Zetud ( talk) 20:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (not native English speaker, please be indulgent)
(undent) Alright, I've started to rewrite the Estates-General section, add cites, etc...let me know if I screw anything up ;) Lazulilasher ( talk) 01:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The Etats-generaux should be included. According to Doyle, this represented the end of absolute monarchy. And, we cannot include the Etats without a brief discussion of the sorrounding history: Assembly of Notables, financial crisis, monarchy could not intervene in Dutch R. I rewrote those two sections (Notables/Etats) and assiduously sourced them. Let me know what you think :) Cdt, Lazulilasher ( talk) 15:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The list: anyone want to start working on changing that long list in the "causes" section to prose? If we could get some citations on it too, that would be awesome :) Lazulilasher ( talk) 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
new template project at User:Hrcolyer/Wikiproject_France/French_Revolution/Template:French_Revolution. Please comment,etc... Also there is a new History of France box Template:History_of_France, but as it doesn't expand by section, I suggest we only change it once the new box is ready. Hrcolyer ( talk) 17:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldnt there be a column about the consequences of the French Revolution? It was a major event not only in France but also in Europe, and its consequences stretched much further then just the napoleonic wars. 77.250.25.165 ( talk) 13:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Influences; who said history doesn't repeat itself rather it rhymes. Under Financial Crisis it would be useful to link in the disastrous influences of the British economist John Law in France [1]and then look at why Dominique de Villepin on 19 April 2009 says there is a current risk of revolution in France http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_MDZmMEpgY. Perhaps if Britain rather than France had memories of John Law then Britian would not currently be engaged in Quantitative Easing (printing money) [2].It would be an excellent addition, especially in today's world, to expand a little more on the Financial History behind the French Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.30.165 ( talk) 19:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
epic march? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
174.0.44.144 (
talk)
21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In the "National Constituent Assembly (1789–1791)" section, under "Storming of the Bastille," paragraph four, it should read: "cries of Vive le Roi were changed to Vive la Nation." It says the opposite right now and is confusing. Simple mistake! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.107.100 ( talk) 19:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
In the opening section, immediately under the "French Revolution" banner, third paragraph, there is mention of the French Revolution being the cause for the invention of "Total War". If you follow the link from "Total War", the article begins by discussing the use of the concept long before the French Revolution, and then states that the French Revolution "...reintroduced some of the concepts...", rather then invented "Total War". These two articles are contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlideStrife ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Could someone write something about Brett Favre in this article or maybe Blazing Saddles? "Warfare involving every other major European powers" should read "warfare involving every other major European power." Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eme2512 ( talk • contribs) 06:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The last line in the second paragraph states: "The next few years were dominated by tensions between various liberal assemblies and a right-wing monarchy intent on thwarting major reforms"
This is not neutral language. It is innapropriate to use "liberal" instead of Leftist and then follow with "right-wing" instead of conservative. It should be either "liberal assemblies and a a conservative..." "or left-wing and a right-wing". Even more egregious is the use of "intent on thwarting reforms". This is very obviously not neutral language. This is a politcal accusation. It should read something like: "The next few years were dominated by tensions between various left-wing assemblies and a right-wing monarchy determined to preserve the current system" or something like that.
Again, the language used here is clearly not neutral and needs to be changed. Ibn Aflatun ( talk) 14:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, I will be working on this section, please come and join me at User:Hrcolyer/Wikiproject_France/French_Revolution/Counter-Revolution, so as not to clog up this page with notes. From the work there I will be working on the section and possibly separate articles as well. Do help, comment as you can/want. Hrcolyer ( talk) 15:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully I can help out with this article, because I think it seems the general consensus is that it needs a little 'cleaning up.' If anyone has any suggestions as to what parts could use a clean-up, let me know and I'll try to improve upon it. rs09985 ( talk) 2:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Rs09985 ( talk) 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
For the actual revolution the start date has always been 1789, not really circa. There isn't much debate when it physically started. The mindset of the people of France, and the nature of the 'true' beginning of the revolution...well I won't even get into that. But, would it be better if we dated it as most historians do, which would be (1789-99) rs09985 ( talk)
pop my two cents in here. revisionist historians, such as Francois furet and william doyle, have dated the french revolution as beginning with the council of notables in 1787. as this was the first break with the absolutist principle of all sovereignty being vested in the king. french revolution has a convoluted historiography and a circa date might actually be more accurate in terms of the long standing debate on its origins. again, my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.232.166 ( talk) 06:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyone know how we gather-up and improve articles around colonizing? like Castorland_Company (during or just after the French Revolution). -- Mjquin_id ( talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
it ended in 1815 as did the napoleonic era —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.60.113 ( talk) 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of the "Causes" section it says "2 billion livres" when it should read "two billion livres." Why is this page protected???
The last paragraph of this section now reads:
This paragraph does not explain the overall level of acceptance of these ideas and does not present alternative views. Fascism and related ideologies are normally seen as a reaction to the liberal ideals of the revolution. Consensus historians in France see Vichy France as incorporating ultra-right ideology ( legitimism) rather than Jacobinism. I understand that there may be similarities between the French and Russian (and American and English for that matter) revolutions but how does that relate to "Rousseauian and Jacobin concepts" being the "seeds...of totalitarianism"?
The paragraph should be re-written for clarity and neutrality.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 12:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Columbia Encyclopedia last two paragraphs:
Effects of the Revolution
The French Revolution, though it seemed a failure in 1799 and appeared nullified by 1815, had far-reaching results. In France the bourgeois and landowning classes emerged as the dominant power. Feudalism was dead; social order and contractual relations were consolidated by the Code Napoléon. The Revolution unified France and enhanced the power of the national state. The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars tore down the ancient structure of Europe, hastened the advent of nationalism, and inaugurated the era of modern, total warfare.
Although some historians view the Reign of Terror as an ominous precursor of modern totalitarianism, others argue that this ignores the vital role the Revolution played in establishing the precedents of such democratic institutions as elections, representative government, and constitutions. The failed attempts of the urban lower middle classes to secure economic and political gains foreshadowed the class conflicts of the 19th cent. While major historical interpretations of the French Revolution differ greatly, nearly all agree that it had an extraordinary influence on the making of the modern world.
C'est tout.
Frania W. ( talk) 01:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
(out)The connection between 1789 and fascism is described in the review:
So the connection between the French Revolution and fascism is nationalism. It does not mention Rousseau or the Terror.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
(out) I took the following out: Historian François Furet in his work, Le Passé d'une illusion (1995) (The Passing of An Illusion (1999) in English translation) explores in detail the similarities between the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution of 1917 more than a century later, arguing that the former was taken as a model by Russian revolutionaries. While it is no doubt true, it violates WP:Weight that the only consequence of the Revolution mentioned is the Russian Revolution. The Four Deuces ( talk) 03:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The page is locked, but I wanted to cite things, and add pictures. 130.39.188.130 ( talk) 20:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Although the artwork is good (and in several cases well-known), it's a mostly unstated mixture of period images and artwork created several generations after the events. Durova 285 03:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Section 6.3 of this article has a picture of a guilloutine with the caption: "Guillotine: between 18,000 and 40,000 people were executed during the Reign of Terror". This very matter-of-fact statement has no apparent source, and therefore seems problematic. The section text itself, which is sourced, says: "A number of historians note that as many as 40,000 accused prisoners may have been summarily executed without trial or died awaiting trial," without indicating any minimum number. Dying while awaiting trial is also obviously different from being sentenced and executed, particularly by guilloutine as the picture seems to indicate.
At the time of writing this, the main Reign of Terror article says, on the question of estimates: "Estimates vary widely as to how many were killed, with numbers ranging from 16,000 to 40,000; in many cases, records were not kept, or if they were, they are considered likely to be inaccurate," and I'm not sure what the source is for that statement.
This is all very confusing, but there's clearly a difference between 16,000 human lives, 18,000 and 40,000. Since this information pertains to such a serious matter, perhaps we should strive for greater accuracy? Or at least to be more clear about the sources for the figures, and their reliability or lack thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.189.103 ( talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
May I ask what "goverment" the French poessions of North America such as New Orelans ,Louisiana have during French Rvolution? Thanks!(dated PMAfternoonAug24,200921stcnt.Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC"X") ANDREMOI ( talk) 22:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I know I must sound stupid but I need help. Please help me to understand this subject better by putting it into simpler terms. Thank you. -- 71.126.145.184 ( talk) 01:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The causes section mentions the king came to power with financial distress, partially attributed to France's involvement in the American Revolution. However, the rest of the section discusses events beginning before France's involvement in that (though after the Seven Years War), and a look at the King's reign also contradicts this. I know France's involvement in the American Revolution eventually contributed to the French Revolution, but the chronology seems to undermine the introduction to this section. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of this can clarify. -- Rybock ( talk) 02:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
There should be more information on women's activism during the French Revolution, especially their writings. The Revolution was an important starting point for female activism in France. Though they didn't have many, if any, political rights, they were able to express their views, especially through writing, and effect at least temporary change in how they were treated. There should be a link to the "Feminism in France" page which unfortunately only contains about 200 words about feminists in the Revolution. EvaBW ( talk) 15:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I came to read an historical article and instead I see something that has clearly been hijacked by someone with a revisionist agenda. About a quarter of the article is now dedicated to women's issue and it gives the article the feel of a badly written term paper from a first year Women's Studies student. A single paragraph would be more appropriate - and if there really need to be more, a link to a separate article on "The Emergence of the Feminist Movement in France during the Revolution" or some such gobbledygook. Can a Wikipedian with more knowledge of how to edit these things help this out? -- 216.251.141.90 ( talk) 20:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Counter Revolutionary Women: Strong pro-Revolution women were not the only women who took an active part in society during the French Revolution. In fact, as Olwen Hufton notes in her essay "In Search of Counter-Revolutionary Women", "the attempt by women to establish a pattern of religious worship... was the most constructive force one can determine at work in society." Thus, these women had a very significant impact on society during the Revolution and helped usher in a return to religious life and "normalcy". Therefore, it would be helpful to add a section to this page examining the impact of these extraordinary women on the times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stjust11 ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I am planning on providing citations for the information in the "Revolution and the Church" article. I would also like expand upon the information currently provided. Specifically, the role of the Church before the Revolution and the origins of de-christianization efforts. It would also be suitable to discuss the impact of Voltaire's writings on de-christianization. The legislative acts against the Church during the revolution need to elaborated upon to show the decline in the power of the Church. It would also be beneficial to discuss, more in depth for the main article, the response and resistance of the clergy. The focus of this revision will show how the transfer of the power of the Church to the Republic was the basis of the dechristianization efforts. KMPalma ( talk) 15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of the section titled 'Estates-General of 1789' it is stated 'suffrage requirements were: 25 years of age and over six livres paid in taxes." Perhaps I am unaware but I didn't think women had voting rights at this time. I think it is dangerous to let it the reader assume that you are referring only to men. Some young women are lucky enough NOT to know that for most of history, and still most of the women in the world today, are oppressed and their views discounted. I think it's not impossible that some young students would read this and not know that women haven't had the vote for most of history.
It is unreasonable that we should let young people learn to accept that as given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.207.73 ( talk) 22:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Some one could most likely tack on a paragraph at the end of this article on the results of this event just for a more clear and concise sort of summary on the revolution and how it impacted France. A little bit on how the Monarchy was abolished for a democratic republic and the ideas of inalienable rights being established. 72.48.20.210 ( talk) 01:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Pointless debate here
|
---|
Could we maybe add a section listing the similarities and differences between the French and English Revolutions? That would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.99.76 ( talk) 01:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
also, in response to the earlier question linking english and french revolutions, which english revolution? And, would not the american revolution be better comparison point due to chronological proximity? Or, the early modern society of england in 1689 as a better comparison point to the french revolution in that the english had a more complex economy then the americans, larger population,longer history of interaction throughout europe, presence of aristocratic classes, larger artisanal class, etc? trying to further discussion on the old discussion page. a comparative viewpoint on the atlantic revolutions be it the american, or one of the english revolutions, the haitian revolution, or the Dutch revolution could be a useful addition to the page. Especially as it could help the inexperienced learner connect the forces at work in one revolution to another. Just as the revolutionary movements rippling through the arab world are all different, understanding the egyptian revolt without knowing about tunisia is only half the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.232.166 ( talk) 06:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC) |
1. Old Regime: The Three Estates First Estate Church owned 10 percent land paid 2 percent in taxes Second Estate Nobles owned 20 percent of land and paid 1 percent taxes Third Estate 98 percent of population working class merchants paid half to taxes The third Estate was out numbered in voting and wanted to have voting with population so everyone was counted they were exploited 2. Economic Problems Population Growth Business could not make money because of high taxes Bad Weather Drought led to famine poor crops The price of bread doubled too expensive for third estate and it was the main source of food 3.Weak Leader Lois XVI spent too much money borrowed to help America defeat Britain Indecisive Did not want to govern his country 4.Marie Antoinette Spent Millions 5.Enlightenment Inspired peasants to revolt 6.American Revolution Inspired peasants served as a model of freedom 7.Dept Desperation Bad Economy -RjR —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeekerR ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
"Looking to the Declaration of Independence of the United States for a model, on 26 August 1789, the Assembly published the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen."
Can we get a citation for this? I've never come across such a claim before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.216.208 ( talk) 12:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The section about Lious XVI's execution says "Others in the crowd went mad, slit their throats or jumped into the river Seine[57]". I find this extremely hard to believe. It goes on to clarify that "according to historian Adam Zamoyski this was not so much due to their love for the King but as he was seen as a representative of God on earth". That's utter nonsense. The revolutionaries were either Catholic, and thus viewed the pope as God's representative on Earth, or else atheist. Many people at the time did believe that kings were born into their power by God, but they certainly didn't think he was a representative of God. Plus this was an open revolution against the king. Quotes from the book please? Any more evidence? Otherwise it seems like a WP:FRINGE theory.-- 178.167.176.199 ( talk) 22:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This may seem insignificant, but perhaps at the top of the page there should be a picture? Wikipedia France's picture is pretty good. It is Louis XVI wearing the citizens cap with the tricolor as the background? Check it out here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9volution_fran%C3%A7aise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs09985 ( talk • contribs) 08:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I cut the following as uncited and dubious:
One of the many effects of the French Revolution was the influence that it had on the famous German philosopher, Neumann. One of the effects that it had on him is that it helped him to develop his theory of the dialectic.
I have no idea who this "famous German philosopher Neumann" is supposed to be; the concept of dialectic, of course, goes back to the Greeks, but in its modern sense it is generally traced to Hegel. So either something here needs a great deal of clarification or, as I suspect, this is nonsense. - Jmabel | Talk 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There was a listing for
The ISBN is invalid; "Montesque" is presumably a typo for "Montesquieu"; all online references seem to duplicate the misspelling, which suggests that they are all mirrors of one another. I am taking it upon myself to delete this, and it should not be restored without some evidence that such a book actually exists. - Jmabel | Talk 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add an external link to an Open Univeristy course ( http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=1515)made available under Creative Commons licence. Can you let me know if you are happy for me to do this?-- Jinky32 12:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The Top page is very, Very difficult to understand, and needs MAJOR cleanup. Downatball5432 14:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC) This crucial sentence about the causes of the Revolution is badly formed and unclear:
"Historians disagree about the political and socioeconomic nature of the revolution. One interpretation is that the old aristocratic order of the Ancien Régime succumbed to the ambitions of a rising bourgeoisie, influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, and allied with aggrieved peasants and wage-earners in the towns, particularly Paris and Lyon. Another interpretation sees various aristocratic and bourgeois attempts at political and economic reform spinning out of control and coinciding with popular movements of the new wage-earning classes and the provincial peasantry, but see any alliance between classes as contingent and incidental."
It's not clear in the above passage what clauses refer to what, and key terms are needlessly vague. What does it mean to "succumb to the ambitions" of the bourgeoisie? They went along with them, or they were destroyed by them? It's unclear. "...influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment"--grammatically this could refer to either the Ancien Regime, or the bourgeoise. Same thing with "allied"--who was allied with whom in this sentence? "Another interpretation sees"? "Sees" is not the best word choice. "Aristocratic and bourgeois attempts"--are these shared attempts, or opposed ones? "Spinning" and "coinciding" present awkwardly mixed metaphors. Someone really needs to rewite these sentences. ThaddeusFrye 20:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Tried to fix this. Aldrichio 14:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Currently, this article states that the time period of the revolution was from 1789 to 1815, which would include the eras of the Consulate and First Empire. Most other writings that I have encountered on the subject say that the revolution lasted from 1789 to 1799, ending with the fall of the Directory. Can anyone say anything in support of the view that the Consulate and First Empire were parts of the revolution? If not, then I think the article should be changed.
Further to the above point, see Anthropologie du nom (by Badiou's cohort Sylvain Lazarus), pp. 220-224, for a succinct account of the political significance of periodisation in the work of Aulard, Mathiez, Lefebvre and Soboul. As Lazarus' and Badiou's work indicates, the problem of demarcation is an extremely significant one here, and deserves to have at least a short passage devoted to it. Shankspony ( talk) 14:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The anti-democratic fervor was falling away from the enlightenment by the time that the revolution occurred with the main anti-democracy philosophers were dead ( Voltaire and Baron d'Holbach for example). Read the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and it reads as much more a paean to democracy and citizenship (especially citizenship) than to individuality. Jvbishop 16:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Nat.tang, if you say that France was not a democratic as not everyone was allowed to vote and you believe in the modern universal suffrage, i'm ok with that. But tho, you could add that Athens and the greeks cities were not democratic too, either the roman republic too... Actually, it was democracy at the beginning, as the Enlightments' philosophers imagined it, however it's true to add the revolution felt into a authoritarian cycle just after. Remember too that at the beginning, this revolution didn't want to destitute or kill the king, they just wanted to change about the absolute monarchy. 90.9.154.60 ( talk) 23:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Only 18,000 killed in the reign of terror? I think not. By 1794, in Paris alone, the average was closer to 800 a month! By the Festival of the Supreme Being, the number of killings was already in excess of 80,000 in the whole of France.
Refer to the History Channel International, which has recently aired a documentary that includes such comment from many notible professors of French history.
This unsigned comment was left by 69.135.178.138 ( talk) and formatted by Jvbishop
This article is very detailed and precise, but only mentions women's contributions to the Revolution once. More should be added! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.141.3.46 ( talk) 23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
The Roman Catholic Church, the largest landowner in the country, levied a harsh tax on crops known as the dîme which while it annedated the crowns tax increases
Anyone have any idea what this should say?
I know that many people were killed during the reign of terror on the slightest suspicion of opposing the Republic. Why then, did so many members of the Bourbon family living in France survive? Wouldn't the republicans have had all of them executed to avoid the risk of a King being restored? Emperor001 14:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
--
I've jsut been doing some revision and I think that the explanation could be that they either fled the country and then returned (Flight of the emigres) or went into hiding in the countryside where radicalism was less prevelant than in Paris (see Thermidorian reaction for counter-revoltionary action) and the major cities where the grip of the Sans-culottes was lessened. There are certainly more explanations for this abnormality but here are a few just to throw into the pot.
-- Samnutter3212 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The following is listed in the See also section:
A Tale of Two Cities - A novel by Charles Dickens
If that is included, shouldn't other major works set in the French Revolution also be mentioned? For example, The Scarlet Pimpernel series by Baroness Orczy. Otherwise, why is A Tale of Two Cities mentioned as though it's non-fiction?
- Elin
In the last paragraph of text under the heading: "National Constituent Assembly (1789–1791) ==
Storming of the Bastille", it says ...
"In rural areas, many went beyond this: some burned title-deeds and no small number of châteaux, as part of a general agrarian insurrection known as "la Grande Peur" (the Great Fear)."
Does this mean that not a small number of châteaux were burned, or should the "no" be simply changed into an "a" or just change the whole sentence to:
"In rural areas, many went beyond this: some ransacked the châteaux of the nobles, burned documentation recording feudal obligations, or compelled those nobles they found in residence to renounce their feudal rights, as part of a general agrarian insurrection known as "la Grande Peur" (the Great Fear)."
OneStooge 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
'monarcy' appears a few times.
Bennybutler 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Think this should be nominated for page of the day?-- § Eloc § 02:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection was removed by User:WJBscribe, who has removed semi-protection from all these articles recently. After removing protection from King Arthur, i5 October, this administrator did not check back to see whether a torrent of vandalism had been unleashed by this action. It had been. I shall simply remove French Revolution from my Watchlist. -- Wetman ( talk) 04:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
They are not here... The one who put the "Historical Analysis" there did not put instead "Legacy" there. The legacy is something that is left by the Revolution. And that Russian Revolution of 1917, as that section indicated is what has been taken from the French Revolution.
NOTE:The information put on the latter part of introduction of the page is not enough to see the other legacies of the Revolution. - Pika ten10 ( talk) 07:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not Robert Sobel, it's Robert Soboul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.106.137 ( talk) 18:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This is stupid. Why can't I edit any pages? Allexey79 ( talk) 06:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi my names Tyler im a middle school student and i come here for info in mostly W.studies papers . my teacher wants title page on clip art on our papers. i would really appreciate it if you could have a chapter with pictures for the topics on this site. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.192.215 ( talk) 20:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This sentence fragment left me scratching my head:
Who the hell is Calonne? He is never mentioned before this. In fact that whole section is pretty hard to understand. 24.174.30.146 ( talk) 04:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks for this entry. It is interesting, which is a feat for some writers of history.
Under the "Women s March on Versailles" section, there is a line "Along with this crowd is Jackie Mangano who was picked up by Travis Walstrom the Time Traveling Assassin who brought her to the present day. Today they live in wealth from his deeds to society[citation needed]. " Please remove this obvious vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.134.163 ( talk) 18:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I searched Wiki for 1st 2nd 3rd Estates and found no correct match. So I went to Google and found this info (link) via French Revolution. Someone in the know, could you set the search to include 1st 2nd 3rd likeas First Second Third. Thanks in advance. Greg0658 ( talk) 14:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know what the " standard work" is (if any) on the French Revolution? -- Ludvikus ( talk) 13:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A recent change suggested that the collapse of the aristocrats aggrieved the peasants rather than they succumbed to peasants who were aggrieved. I don't think this is correct, have I made a mistake on the rollback? BananaFiend ( talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Many historians state that the revolution began before 1789, Wright says that it began as aristocratic clash with the monarchy in 1787 and led on to the events of 1789... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.196.213 ( talk) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk about Robespeirre bringing tranny to France. And unlessing totalitarism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.62.45 ( talk) 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The caption for the picture of the declaration of the rights of man says that it is the declaration of human rights. Clearly the declaration was sexist and was not what we would call true human rights today. 60.242.186.33 ( talk) 02:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The declaration pictured is not "the declaration of the rights of man". It is the "Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen". See http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homme for the meaning of "Homme".
Breandán Dalton ( talk) 11:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to have at least a sentence or two about the Counter-Revolution in this article. Kaldari ( talk) 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article. Originally, I was only going to move it to the the end of the section, but it needs quality improvements. For one thing, it's generic - like a pamphlet. Secondly, it's a little anachronistic, even in its simplicity. The reasons listed in the article as is are certainly not pro-monarchy, they're better thought out and delivered, and they're more accurate and relevant. If you want to make a case for socialism in France in the late 1700's, that should still go in a special section/subsection devoted to it.
BTW: is there really that much disagreement about the repetition in history of: people living under terrible conditions and an indifferent, inept government leading to violence and revolution; or is that a standard recipe for tensions and instability? Blablablob ( talk) 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yet another interpretation asserts that the revolution resulted when various aristocratic and bourgeois reform movements span out of control. According to this model, these movements coincided with popular movements of the new wage-earning classes and the provincial peasantry, but any alliance between classes was contingent and incidental.
Since I'm a new member I am not permitted to edit this protected page but I wanted to make a request. I found a creditable source of France's financial circumstances, they actually had 4 billion livres of debt (80 % of GNP), with a budget deficit of 100 million livres. Here is the source, third paragraph: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/63.3/potofsky.html. It should be changed to more accurately depict France's financial situation. I'm pretty sure the link will work, but my college pays for a subcription so I'm not positive.
Thanks,
RoberttheKingmaker ( talk) 21:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Greetings everyone: I propose we begin a rewrite of this article, in order to create a better read. A subject of this magnitude deserves the best, and I'd like to get momentum behind a substantial improvement drive. I am going to begin editing shortly; please feel free to revert any of my edits if you don't agree: we can discuss. Is there anyone else that would like to help? Aux armes, citoyens. Lazulilasher ( talk) 18:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I unprotected this article, as I am attempting to improve it. I found it disingenuous to have the "article needs improvement" tag on w/ semi-protect on as well. I've got the page on my watchlist, and it will be my main editing area for the time being. If vandalism becomes too significant, I will re-protect. Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 23:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I made some minor updates of the page, but here are a few personal additional commments:
+ one question : you use "British english" (the one I studied) or "American english" (the one I use now) Zetud ( talk) 20:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (not native English speaker, please be indulgent)
(undent) Alright, I've started to rewrite the Estates-General section, add cites, etc...let me know if I screw anything up ;) Lazulilasher ( talk) 01:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The Etats-generaux should be included. According to Doyle, this represented the end of absolute monarchy. And, we cannot include the Etats without a brief discussion of the sorrounding history: Assembly of Notables, financial crisis, monarchy could not intervene in Dutch R. I rewrote those two sections (Notables/Etats) and assiduously sourced them. Let me know what you think :) Cdt, Lazulilasher ( talk) 15:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The list: anyone want to start working on changing that long list in the "causes" section to prose? If we could get some citations on it too, that would be awesome :) Lazulilasher ( talk) 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
new template project at User:Hrcolyer/Wikiproject_France/French_Revolution/Template:French_Revolution. Please comment,etc... Also there is a new History of France box Template:History_of_France, but as it doesn't expand by section, I suggest we only change it once the new box is ready. Hrcolyer ( talk) 17:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldnt there be a column about the consequences of the French Revolution? It was a major event not only in France but also in Europe, and its consequences stretched much further then just the napoleonic wars. 77.250.25.165 ( talk) 13:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Influences; who said history doesn't repeat itself rather it rhymes. Under Financial Crisis it would be useful to link in the disastrous influences of the British economist John Law in France [1]and then look at why Dominique de Villepin on 19 April 2009 says there is a current risk of revolution in France http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_MDZmMEpgY. Perhaps if Britain rather than France had memories of John Law then Britian would not currently be engaged in Quantitative Easing (printing money) [2].It would be an excellent addition, especially in today's world, to expand a little more on the Financial History behind the French Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.30.165 ( talk) 19:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
epic march? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
174.0.44.144 (
talk)
21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In the "National Constituent Assembly (1789–1791)" section, under "Storming of the Bastille," paragraph four, it should read: "cries of Vive le Roi were changed to Vive la Nation." It says the opposite right now and is confusing. Simple mistake! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.107.100 ( talk) 19:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
In the opening section, immediately under the "French Revolution" banner, third paragraph, there is mention of the French Revolution being the cause for the invention of "Total War". If you follow the link from "Total War", the article begins by discussing the use of the concept long before the French Revolution, and then states that the French Revolution "...reintroduced some of the concepts...", rather then invented "Total War". These two articles are contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlideStrife ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Could someone write something about Brett Favre in this article or maybe Blazing Saddles? "Warfare involving every other major European powers" should read "warfare involving every other major European power." Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eme2512 ( talk • contribs) 06:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The last line in the second paragraph states: "The next few years were dominated by tensions between various liberal assemblies and a right-wing monarchy intent on thwarting major reforms"
This is not neutral language. It is innapropriate to use "liberal" instead of Leftist and then follow with "right-wing" instead of conservative. It should be either "liberal assemblies and a a conservative..." "or left-wing and a right-wing". Even more egregious is the use of "intent on thwarting reforms". This is very obviously not neutral language. This is a politcal accusation. It should read something like: "The next few years were dominated by tensions between various left-wing assemblies and a right-wing monarchy determined to preserve the current system" or something like that.
Again, the language used here is clearly not neutral and needs to be changed. Ibn Aflatun ( talk) 14:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, I will be working on this section, please come and join me at User:Hrcolyer/Wikiproject_France/French_Revolution/Counter-Revolution, so as not to clog up this page with notes. From the work there I will be working on the section and possibly separate articles as well. Do help, comment as you can/want. Hrcolyer ( talk) 15:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully I can help out with this article, because I think it seems the general consensus is that it needs a little 'cleaning up.' If anyone has any suggestions as to what parts could use a clean-up, let me know and I'll try to improve upon it. rs09985 ( talk) 2:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Rs09985 ( talk) 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
For the actual revolution the start date has always been 1789, not really circa. There isn't much debate when it physically started. The mindset of the people of France, and the nature of the 'true' beginning of the revolution...well I won't even get into that. But, would it be better if we dated it as most historians do, which would be (1789-99) rs09985 ( talk)
pop my two cents in here. revisionist historians, such as Francois furet and william doyle, have dated the french revolution as beginning with the council of notables in 1787. as this was the first break with the absolutist principle of all sovereignty being vested in the king. french revolution has a convoluted historiography and a circa date might actually be more accurate in terms of the long standing debate on its origins. again, my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.232.166 ( talk) 06:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyone know how we gather-up and improve articles around colonizing? like Castorland_Company (during or just after the French Revolution). -- Mjquin_id ( talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
it ended in 1815 as did the napoleonic era —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.60.113 ( talk) 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of the "Causes" section it says "2 billion livres" when it should read "two billion livres." Why is this page protected???
The last paragraph of this section now reads:
This paragraph does not explain the overall level of acceptance of these ideas and does not present alternative views. Fascism and related ideologies are normally seen as a reaction to the liberal ideals of the revolution. Consensus historians in France see Vichy France as incorporating ultra-right ideology ( legitimism) rather than Jacobinism. I understand that there may be similarities between the French and Russian (and American and English for that matter) revolutions but how does that relate to "Rousseauian and Jacobin concepts" being the "seeds...of totalitarianism"?
The paragraph should be re-written for clarity and neutrality.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 12:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Columbia Encyclopedia last two paragraphs:
Effects of the Revolution
The French Revolution, though it seemed a failure in 1799 and appeared nullified by 1815, had far-reaching results. In France the bourgeois and landowning classes emerged as the dominant power. Feudalism was dead; social order and contractual relations were consolidated by the Code Napoléon. The Revolution unified France and enhanced the power of the national state. The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars tore down the ancient structure of Europe, hastened the advent of nationalism, and inaugurated the era of modern, total warfare.
Although some historians view the Reign of Terror as an ominous precursor of modern totalitarianism, others argue that this ignores the vital role the Revolution played in establishing the precedents of such democratic institutions as elections, representative government, and constitutions. The failed attempts of the urban lower middle classes to secure economic and political gains foreshadowed the class conflicts of the 19th cent. While major historical interpretations of the French Revolution differ greatly, nearly all agree that it had an extraordinary influence on the making of the modern world.
C'est tout.
Frania W. ( talk) 01:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
(out)The connection between 1789 and fascism is described in the review:
So the connection between the French Revolution and fascism is nationalism. It does not mention Rousseau or the Terror.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
(out) I took the following out: Historian François Furet in his work, Le Passé d'une illusion (1995) (The Passing of An Illusion (1999) in English translation) explores in detail the similarities between the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution of 1917 more than a century later, arguing that the former was taken as a model by Russian revolutionaries. While it is no doubt true, it violates WP:Weight that the only consequence of the Revolution mentioned is the Russian Revolution. The Four Deuces ( talk) 03:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The page is locked, but I wanted to cite things, and add pictures. 130.39.188.130 ( talk) 20:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Although the artwork is good (and in several cases well-known), it's a mostly unstated mixture of period images and artwork created several generations after the events. Durova 285 03:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Section 6.3 of this article has a picture of a guilloutine with the caption: "Guillotine: between 18,000 and 40,000 people were executed during the Reign of Terror". This very matter-of-fact statement has no apparent source, and therefore seems problematic. The section text itself, which is sourced, says: "A number of historians note that as many as 40,000 accused prisoners may have been summarily executed without trial or died awaiting trial," without indicating any minimum number. Dying while awaiting trial is also obviously different from being sentenced and executed, particularly by guilloutine as the picture seems to indicate.
At the time of writing this, the main Reign of Terror article says, on the question of estimates: "Estimates vary widely as to how many were killed, with numbers ranging from 16,000 to 40,000; in many cases, records were not kept, or if they were, they are considered likely to be inaccurate," and I'm not sure what the source is for that statement.
This is all very confusing, but there's clearly a difference between 16,000 human lives, 18,000 and 40,000. Since this information pertains to such a serious matter, perhaps we should strive for greater accuracy? Or at least to be more clear about the sources for the figures, and their reliability or lack thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.189.103 ( talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
May I ask what "goverment" the French poessions of North America such as New Orelans ,Louisiana have during French Rvolution? Thanks!(dated PMAfternoonAug24,200921stcnt.Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC"X") ANDREMOI ( talk) 22:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I know I must sound stupid but I need help. Please help me to understand this subject better by putting it into simpler terms. Thank you. -- 71.126.145.184 ( talk) 01:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The causes section mentions the king came to power with financial distress, partially attributed to France's involvement in the American Revolution. However, the rest of the section discusses events beginning before France's involvement in that (though after the Seven Years War), and a look at the King's reign also contradicts this. I know France's involvement in the American Revolution eventually contributed to the French Revolution, but the chronology seems to undermine the introduction to this section. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of this can clarify. -- Rybock ( talk) 02:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
There should be more information on women's activism during the French Revolution, especially their writings. The Revolution was an important starting point for female activism in France. Though they didn't have many, if any, political rights, they were able to express their views, especially through writing, and effect at least temporary change in how they were treated. There should be a link to the "Feminism in France" page which unfortunately only contains about 200 words about feminists in the Revolution. EvaBW ( talk) 15:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I came to read an historical article and instead I see something that has clearly been hijacked by someone with a revisionist agenda. About a quarter of the article is now dedicated to women's issue and it gives the article the feel of a badly written term paper from a first year Women's Studies student. A single paragraph would be more appropriate - and if there really need to be more, a link to a separate article on "The Emergence of the Feminist Movement in France during the Revolution" or some such gobbledygook. Can a Wikipedian with more knowledge of how to edit these things help this out? -- 216.251.141.90 ( talk) 20:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Counter Revolutionary Women: Strong pro-Revolution women were not the only women who took an active part in society during the French Revolution. In fact, as Olwen Hufton notes in her essay "In Search of Counter-Revolutionary Women", "the attempt by women to establish a pattern of religious worship... was the most constructive force one can determine at work in society." Thus, these women had a very significant impact on society during the Revolution and helped usher in a return to religious life and "normalcy". Therefore, it would be helpful to add a section to this page examining the impact of these extraordinary women on the times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stjust11 ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I am planning on providing citations for the information in the "Revolution and the Church" article. I would also like expand upon the information currently provided. Specifically, the role of the Church before the Revolution and the origins of de-christianization efforts. It would also be suitable to discuss the impact of Voltaire's writings on de-christianization. The legislative acts against the Church during the revolution need to elaborated upon to show the decline in the power of the Church. It would also be beneficial to discuss, more in depth for the main article, the response and resistance of the clergy. The focus of this revision will show how the transfer of the power of the Church to the Republic was the basis of the dechristianization efforts. KMPalma ( talk) 15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of the section titled 'Estates-General of 1789' it is stated 'suffrage requirements were: 25 years of age and over six livres paid in taxes." Perhaps I am unaware but I didn't think women had voting rights at this time. I think it is dangerous to let it the reader assume that you are referring only to men. Some young women are lucky enough NOT to know that for most of history, and still most of the women in the world today, are oppressed and their views discounted. I think it's not impossible that some young students would read this and not know that women haven't had the vote for most of history.
It is unreasonable that we should let young people learn to accept that as given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.207.73 ( talk) 22:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Some one could most likely tack on a paragraph at the end of this article on the results of this event just for a more clear and concise sort of summary on the revolution and how it impacted France. A little bit on how the Monarchy was abolished for a democratic republic and the ideas of inalienable rights being established. 72.48.20.210 ( talk) 01:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Pointless debate here
|
---|
Could we maybe add a section listing the similarities and differences between the French and English Revolutions? That would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.99.76 ( talk) 01:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
also, in response to the earlier question linking english and french revolutions, which english revolution? And, would not the american revolution be better comparison point due to chronological proximity? Or, the early modern society of england in 1689 as a better comparison point to the french revolution in that the english had a more complex economy then the americans, larger population,longer history of interaction throughout europe, presence of aristocratic classes, larger artisanal class, etc? trying to further discussion on the old discussion page. a comparative viewpoint on the atlantic revolutions be it the american, or one of the english revolutions, the haitian revolution, or the Dutch revolution could be a useful addition to the page. Especially as it could help the inexperienced learner connect the forces at work in one revolution to another. Just as the revolutionary movements rippling through the arab world are all different, understanding the egyptian revolt without knowing about tunisia is only half the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.232.166 ( talk) 06:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC) |
1. Old Regime: The Three Estates First Estate Church owned 10 percent land paid 2 percent in taxes Second Estate Nobles owned 20 percent of land and paid 1 percent taxes Third Estate 98 percent of population working class merchants paid half to taxes The third Estate was out numbered in voting and wanted to have voting with population so everyone was counted they were exploited 2. Economic Problems Population Growth Business could not make money because of high taxes Bad Weather Drought led to famine poor crops The price of bread doubled too expensive for third estate and it was the main source of food 3.Weak Leader Lois XVI spent too much money borrowed to help America defeat Britain Indecisive Did not want to govern his country 4.Marie Antoinette Spent Millions 5.Enlightenment Inspired peasants to revolt 6.American Revolution Inspired peasants served as a model of freedom 7.Dept Desperation Bad Economy -RjR —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeekerR ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
"Looking to the Declaration of Independence of the United States for a model, on 26 August 1789, the Assembly published the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen."
Can we get a citation for this? I've never come across such a claim before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.216.208 ( talk) 12:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The section about Lious XVI's execution says "Others in the crowd went mad, slit their throats or jumped into the river Seine[57]". I find this extremely hard to believe. It goes on to clarify that "according to historian Adam Zamoyski this was not so much due to their love for the King but as he was seen as a representative of God on earth". That's utter nonsense. The revolutionaries were either Catholic, and thus viewed the pope as God's representative on Earth, or else atheist. Many people at the time did believe that kings were born into their power by God, but they certainly didn't think he was a representative of God. Plus this was an open revolution against the king. Quotes from the book please? Any more evidence? Otherwise it seems like a WP:FRINGE theory.-- 178.167.176.199 ( talk) 22:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)