![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The cultural depictions always need a separate section because there are many of them, mine was just the first Cote d'Azur 08:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur ( talk • contribs)
"After he was executed, some of the citizens who witnessed the beheading ran forth to have their clothes soaked in the late King's blood, dripping from his head. [1]"
Why should this sentence of an event recognised by historians - and not only by "non-expert" Albert Camus - be removed from text? - "bloody stuff", maybe, but the French Revolution was a "bloody affair", no need here to be politically correct.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 13:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
While reading this article I came across the term "Financial Dictatorship" and was thoroughly confused. Could anyone shed some light on this phrase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.210.145 ( talk) 08:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Two things. First, the article says this:
Is this quantifiable? The AR page says 7,800 troops sent to aid the Colonies and at least one ship. Doesn't sound like much financial strain. Is the above statement slanted towards a particular viewpoint?
Also, I'm curious if the American Revolution had any effect on the thinking of the revolutionaries in France. That is, was it influential? If so, why leave it out? Seems like there was some interchange of ideas and at the very least Ben Franklin spent a lot of time in Paris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynasteria ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
since this is one of the most important topics in world history, I added a further reading section which will point users to the main reference books and scholarly studies, many of which will be available in typical academic libraries Rjensen ( talk) 04:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
It can be argued Napoleon was not a dictator as First Consul. A dictator, in Rome, had both decreed and applied the law; moreoever, he was not elected by the people. In no sense, then, can Napoleon be called a dictator. Actually, on the contrary, if democracy is a system under which the whole people confides the government to magistrates of its choice elected for a limited period, then by the new Constitution France would be entering upon democracy. Although much of the governmental power was on Bonaparte, he did not wield absolute and supreme power, and his actions were very much limited by a intact government.
Although that all-powerful position of First Consul had the power to propose legislation, it was the specialized sections of the Council of State that wrote them: finance, legislation, war, navy, interior. There was no secrecy; the ministers attended the meetings and the consuls' approval was required to enact a law.
Either way, however, for the sake of being neutral, the text:
"This effectively led to Bonaparte's dictatorship and eventually (in 1804) to his proclamation as Empereur (emperor), which brought to a close the specifically republican phase of the French Revolution."
Should be replaced by:
"This effectively led to Bonaparte becoming the leader of France and eventually (in 1804) to his proclamation as Empereur (emperor), which brought to a close the specifically republican phase of the French Revolution."
I could also argue that Napoleon was still very much the republican that he was before becoming Emperor, but that is a discussion for another time.
-Talon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.19.17 ( talk) 23:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
What were the chief reasons of Necker's failures? It wasn't very well explained. TYelliot ( talk) 15:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
This line (from the Pre-revolution Financial Crisis section) "Necker published a report to support this claim that underestimated the deficit by roughly 36,000 livres, and proposed restricting the spending power of the parlements." may be incorrect in regards to the underestimated amount. 36,000 livres seems like a trivial amount compared to the budgets of the day, which seem to be in the hundreds of millions (at least, from what I could find in the Jaques Necker article). Perhaps there is a source for this figure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.7.205 ( talk) 18:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I am thinking about adding more on David's portrayal of revolutionary events. He's an important figure in cultural and political events and really deserves more attention. ClioFR ( talk) 05:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I am proposing an expansion on symbolism during the French Revolution. The figure of Hercules was a central figure of the monarchy and was then adapted to be a symbol of revolutionary glory. I think that this topic can be a useful tool to show how classical mythology was used during the Revolution. It can also show how revolutionary leaders still kept remnants of the Monarchy. Wavesworld ( talk) 17:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
We are a small class group that is looking to contribute a small article about some symbols of the French Revolution. We are currently planning to describe the uses and reasons behind the red bonnet and Phrygian cap; the triangle; and the serpent. We chose one symbol from each group of symbol creation- either to replace an older religious symbol, to make a symbol that is easily recognizable, or to introduce a new working-class symbol. Our alternative plan is to work with another class group that is studying the French Republic seal, and we would analyze the symbols used in the seal.
Solidnitrogen ( talk) 17:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
In the paragraph about the Civil Constitution of the Church, why in the world is the latter half of that paragraph about stuff that happened after the National Assembly was dissolved, under Napoleon's rule? That stuff, like the Concordat of 1801, should be relocated to the subsection relating to Napoleon, not the National Assembly.
98.82.128.180 ( talk) 16:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course, we must recognize that Louis XVI was publicly supportive of the Constitution of 1791 (having sworn an oath to uphold it) while leaving behind a letter abjuring his oath on the flight to Montmedy. His wife was also exposed as a spy, having reported to France's enemies of troop movements, etc. Presenting him as merely 'opposed to the course of the revolution' and offering no other explanation of the flight to Varennes (in fact, the article suggests he intentionally avoided 'treacherous' relationships (!)) is a de facto exoneration of what, to many French people at the time was high treason. This is a neutral assessment because this is how it appeared to people at the time. The assessment in the article is more or less pro-Louis. Maurizio689 ( talk) 21:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I notice there are quite a few requests for citation on some basic facts about the course of the Revolution. I believe most of this could be cited from Mignet, if anyone wishes to take the time to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to say: glad to see recent use of Soboul and Lefebvre as sources. I've read them, but it was decades ago and I don't have copies. - Jmabel | Talk 18:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The intro paragraph states: The modern era has unfolded in the shadow of the French Revolution. The growth of republics and liberal democracies, the spread of secularism, the development of modern ideologies and the invention of total war[2] all mark their birth during the Revolution. --
This intro is very Eurocentric. Liberal democracies existed before the French Revolution (The United States), secularism was not born during this time, the "development of modern ideologies" is ambiguous, and "total war" certainly wasn't invented during this period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.56.170 ( talk) 06:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
In order to prevent User:Hashem sfarim from getting into trouble from edit-warring and lack of assuming good faith, I am starting this section. I am not in favour of the addition of a list of a chronological table of the events to this article. The article is long enough as it is, and all the events mentioned are included in the actual article text. To my knowledge chronological tables are only used in articles as a temporary solution to include important facts that have yet to be added to the actual article text. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 22:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I reverted this addition to the lead. Not that an expansion isn't warranted, it may be considering the length of the article, but the wording was not encyclopedic and it also just repeated much of the information already contained in the lead. It also contained too many peacock expressions ("feeble", "fabled", "epic" etc) as well as weaselwording (enlightenment and rightful hierarchy in what looks like sarcastic apostrophes). It is a positive thing not to use too dry a prose, but it can also get too flowery. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 19:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
hj0othihrhjibrderhewhgrpobuerpobiur4n]igw herro prease
207.239.82.254 ( talk) 17:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Not done: No specific request apparent.
Lazulilasher (
talk)
17:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} In the introductory section, please replace
French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from radical left-wing political groups and the masses on the streets.
with
French society underwent and epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from an impoverished and desperate peasant class.
CTJen ( talk) 15:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
How about...
The adjectives of "impoverished" and "desperate" are as leading as if the text would state something along the lines of...
Shearonink ( talk) 06:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Amazing how a few words can mean so much! I've pulled out my copy of Michel Vovelle's "La Revolution Francaise," which is a standard introductory textbook for college students in France, and attempts to integrate classical, republican and revisionist work (it was recommended to me by a professor of French history and specifically revolutionary history while I was in France; she was something of a "post-revisionist"). In a section titled "The three revolutions of 1789," Vovelle writes,
"One can speak of three [revolutions] in the summer of 1789: an institutional or parliamentary revolution at the top, a municipal or urban revolution, and a peasant revolution. From a pedagogical perspective this presentation can prove useful... [a few pages later] That which we call the peasant revolution is not a repetition of the urban: it has, according to the evidence, its own rhythm, and "war aims." After the initial uprisings in the spring of 1789, agrarian revolts expanded into many regions (in the north, en Hainaut, in the west, in the bocage of Normandy, just as in the east, Haut-Alsace and Franche-Comte, and then Maconnais): primarily anti-nobility, often burning down castles, violent, and sometimes forcefully repressed. In the context of these localized revolts, the second half of July saw the emergence of another movement both similar but also different: the Great Fear, that would involve over half of the territory of France. This collective panic can be interpreted as the altered echo, repeated in the countrysides, of the urban revolutions. This trope is both simple and complex; the villagers had run for their weapons at the announcement of imaginary dangers: Piedmontese in the Alps, English on the coast, 'brigands' everywhere. Propagated by contact, this fear soon dissipated, but extended within a few days to the entire realm. It awakened the agrarian revolt and was prolonged by the pillaging of castles and destruction, by fire, of seigniorial privileges. In this light, the Great Fear is more than a movement, as argues Michelet, "come from the depths of ages:" it expresses the mobilization of peasant masses and symbolizes their official entry into the Revolution."
Vovelle, Michel, "La Revolution Francaise: 1789-1799," pp.16-18. Armand Colin, Paris: 2006
While the Great Fear can be and is interpreted in many ways, most historians recognize that there was a large scale mobilization of the peasantry in the the summer of 1789 that preceded (and perhaps also followed) the events of 4 August. Because an epic transformation" of French society includes the abolition of feudalism, which is not unrelated to the burning of castles in the countryside by peasants, a reasonable change to the current text might simply be the following:
"French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from radical or left-wing political groups, masses on the streets, and peasants in the countryside."
As to "radical" and "left-wing," I find it difficult to argue that the Jacobins in general or Montagnards would not be described by both terms, especially in the context of the 18th century. - Darouet ( talk) 21:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence doesn't seem to make much sense.
"The French Revolution, sometimes distinguished as the 'Great French Revolution', was a period of radical social and political upheaval in French and European."
It should be "... radical social and political upheaval in France and Europe."
174.93.67.107 (
talk)
21:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeesh. Fixed. Thanks! SteveStrummer ( talk) 21:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a small point, but the reference to democracy has been removed from the first paragraph. It was removed because "it sounds judgmental." However the term in this case is not being employed as a value judgement (and I grant that this can be done in various contexts) but rather describes the transition from an absolute monarchy in 1789 to census suffrage and then universal male suffrage in 1793-94. Any objections to my placing the word back in? - Darouet ( talk) 22:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Darouet has asked me to comment on the edit that I made back in May of 2006 viz. "a major turning point in the history of Western democracy—from the age of absolutism and aristocracy, to the age of the citizenry as the dominant political force." According to Darouet, this later evolved to "Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy - of monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority - were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship, inalienable rights, as well as nationalism and (briefly) democracy," although he didn't say whether I was responsible for the second form of the idea. Quite honestly, I have no recollection of making either of those edits, let alone what my reasoning was in making them. Frankly, it sounds like I plagiarized some source to get the first text. All I can say is that it was five years ago and this is not an article that I have been actively involved in since.
That said, I do think that the French Revolution was a "a major turning point in the history of Western democracy". It needs to be included in a list that includes the Magna Carta, the English Revolution and the American Revolution. IMO, the debate about whether or not democracy existed, even briefly, during the French Revolution is perhaps missing the point. The problem with the debate is that it centers on whether or not democracy existed while the sentence is talking about "old ideas" being "abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles". Thus, we should be talking about the ideals that were in play, not the actuality that failed to achieve those ideals. From this perspective, I don't think nationalism belongs in this list as I believe that is a development that arose in the mid-nineteenth century (around the time of the formation of Germany and Italy although arguably earlier with the independence of Greece and the Megali Idea). However, I do think democracy is an "Enlightenment principle" and therefore should be included in the sentence.
I also note that the end of the introduction makes the important point: "The growth of republics and liberal democracies, the spread of secularism, the development of modern ideologies and the invention of total war[3] all mark their birth during the Revolution." Once again, it's not a question of how much democracy actually existed during the French Revolution. It's a question of whether democracy was one of the driving principles and whether later democratic movements looked back at the French Revolution and drew inspiration from it. I note that the English Revolution did depose and execute a monarch but that the dynastic line was ultimately restored. The American Revolution did establish a lasting democracy but it did not depose a monarch. The French Revolution deposed and executed a monarch, ending his dynastic line but failed to establish a lasting democracy. For all its failures, the French Revolution had an important influence on the revolutionary and democratic movements of 19th century Europe.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC) "Although the British had pioneered constitutional and representative government, it was the French Revolution of 1789 that most dramatically challenged political absolutism and popularized democratic ideas throughout the continent." [3] - What I said. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 17:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Because we haven't come up with a rationale for defining democracy as something unrelated to suffrage and representation, I still don't see the rationale for removing the term democracy from the original sentence being discussed: "Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy - of monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority - were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship, inalienable rights and democracy." - Darouet ( talk) 17:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like to consider adding a small sub-section on the counter-revolutionary activity in Lyon. I see that there is a page on the Revolt of Lyon Against the National Convention, but I feel that a brief synopsis and link under the counter-revolution section of the main French Revolution page explaining the importance of this event would be appropriate and beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedd2736 ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reference 93 is wrong, universal suffrage did not exist in the 1793 and the reference itself does not indicate this. Page 244 of the Oxford History of the French Revolution, Doyle states: "The constitution of 1793 provided a unicameral legislature elected annually by direct manhood suffrage, and the legislature would choose the executive council" The sentence "Furthermore, the universal suffrage of 1793 was replaced by limited suffrage based on property." should read as "Furthermore, the manhood suffrage of 1793 was replaced by limited suffrage based on property."
Jgbh ( talk) 21:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Done The phrase 'universal male suffrage' was already used twice in the article, so I used that in place of 'manhood suffrage'. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
23:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
In 1793, Revolutionary forces captured Monaco and it remained under direct French control until 1814, when the Grimaldis returned to the throne. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/2530539.stm http://www.monaco-consulate.com/index.php/about/history/
Thanks, B-watchmework ( talk) 18:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
At the end of the article, it says, "The Revolution represented the most significant and dramatic challenge to political absolutism up to that point in history". I think the ancient Athenians would have a thing or two to say about that statement. They were experimenting with similar ideas before France (or liberalism) even existed. So can we please temper the language in that sentence? 108.175.231.17 ( talk) 03:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence is pretty awkward and redundant and gives a bad impression of an otherwise solid article.
"The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a major impact on France and throughout the rest of Europe"
...could perhaps become:
"The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that profoundly effected the rest of Europe"
...or even:
"The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a major impact on (France and) the rest of Europe"
Questions to consider: -Do we need to restate the effects of the French Revolution on France? Isn't it implied? -How can we structure that phrase to include French as well as non-French effects of the revolution?
Cogito Ergo Sum ( talk) 13:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
On the veery first sentence, (The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a major impact on France and throughout the rest of Europe) neeeds commas between radical, social, and political upheaval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecommander15 ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I have removed "Monaco" from the infobox, because it is not relevant in connection with this. What happened was that the French forces invaded Monaco in 1793 and deposed the Grimaldis, similar incidents occurred in the Lowlands, Italy and some German states, but there is no need to list all them here, as that is all part of the French Revolutionary Wars, not a part of the French Revolution itself. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 10:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fourth paragraph of the Introduction, eighth line down, please capitalize "h" in "he" at the beginning of the fourth sentence in the paragraph. In the subequent sentence, please add an "e" to "achievemnt" betwen the "m" and "n".
In the "causes" section, first paragraph, twelfth line down, please change "the France" to either "the French" or "France". In the subsequent paragraph, please add "was" or another simple past tense state of being verb between "Versailles" and "isolated".
In the "see also", under the "general" subheading, please add a hyperlink to this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools'_Day 119.57.67.171 ( talk) 06:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The article reads: "Women had no political rights in pre-Revolutionary France; they could not vote or hold any political office. They were considered "passive" citizens; forced to rely on men to determine what was best for them in the government. It was the men who defined these categories, and women were forced to accept male domination in the political"
This text insinuates that, after the Revolution, women would have received some political rights. They got nothing. The notion of "passive" citizens is a well-defined revolutionary term, not one from the Ancien Régime. It denoted those who had not enough money to pay a minimum of taxes - peasants and labourers-, those younger than 25, women, servants, and those who were bankrupt. "Passive citizens" could not vote for the revolutionary Assemblée and could not be member of the militia (Garde nationale").
Before the Revolution, (single) women had some voting rights: noble owners of a territory and abesses voted for representatives in the Estates General. After the Revolution, no woman was allowed to vote,
Should we not stick to facts, and remove this misleading text, even if it seems to be taken from a "reference"?
Riyadi (
talk)
18:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
If it's just misleading but otherwise correct, it should be clarified not removed. --
Roly (
talk)
19:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it is not correct. If we would take away "pre-", the phrase would almost change into its opposite, but it would become correct.
Riyadi (
talk)
21:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Marquis de la Fayette is called both La Fayette and Lafayette in the section "Completing the constitution", nowhere else in the article is the latter version used, so maybe change it to La Fayette? Transmogriff ( talk) 16:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
"Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history, and the end of the early modern period, which started around 1500, is traditionally attributed to the onset of the French Revolution in 1789."
No. It had very little impact outside France and the article doesn't indicate otherwise.
"The Revolution represented the most significant and dramatic challenge to political absolutism up to that point in history and spread democratic ideals throughout Europe and ultimately the world."
No. What people took away from the French Revolution was its bloodshed and dictatorship. The spread of democratic ideals was already being done by parliamentary democracy in Britain (a more powerful and influential country) and in particular by the success of the American Republic. 24.44.252.192 ( talk) 19:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)captcrisis
The first "result" is more of a "recap." Can it be replaced with the following two points:
In this article it is said that The Declaration of Rights of Man extended rights to women and slaves when in fact it did not. It strictly included men, similar to the Declaration of Independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.204.57 ( talk) 10:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand this article is undergoing/listed for GAR. If I may suggest an alteration to the page's writer, it needs much more focus on its wider (international) historical context and immediate legacy. Other revolutions of 1789 - the Brabant Revolution and Liège Revolution to name just two are much more directly relevant legacies of the French revolution itself (as opposed to the later revolutionary rule) than 1848 or the Louisiana Purchase, which are currently named. Brigade Piron ( talk) 22:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I find this in the section about the Directory (1795-1799):
"In this way the army and its successful general, Napoleon Bonaparte eventually gained total power."
Please make one of these changes:
If Napoleon Bonaparte was the only successful general in the army at that time, add comma after "Bonaparte".
If there were other successful generals in the army at that time, remove comma after "general".
128.63.16.20 ( talk) 16:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure this article is very good. However, for me, it is just a load of data, of facts, it does not constitute information as I know it. I just wanted to find a "potted" history - a chronology, with key events, facts and people, so that I could then delve deeper at my leisure. Could someone compile one of these at the start of the article (with intra-page links - however you do these)?
Also, I notice on the disambiguation page that there were other French Revolutions. Again, an "idiot's guide" would have been useful, with key dates, facts and people (and a brief brief of how the various revolutions interlink).
Thanks DrWhoFan ( talk) 09:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section revolution and the church, the phrase firt-day-of-the-week should be changed to: first-day-of-the-week.
thank you
Ben84jazz ( talk) 18:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Done Thanks for pointing that out -
Arjayay (
talk)
19:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I see under the symbols section "The symbol of Hercules was first adopted by the Old Regime to represent the monarchy." The source is listed as Hunt 1984, 89.
However page 89 in Hunt does not make any mention of Hercules, and when Hercules is discussed later in the chapter it is only as a symbol of the people, not the monarchy. Perhaps a different source should be listed here? Jimpudar ( talk) 21:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)jim
Do any person believe the human race has regressed rather tham progressed in last 50 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.207.132 ( talk) 20:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I can help to improve this page by translating some part of the French page. But my English is not perfect, so if somebody is motivated to help me with that (or on another article), please answer me ;) Nanaki13( talk) 13:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I am opposed to the expansions of content in recent weeks and addition of high levels of detail that have now made this summary article far too long: The article has now reached a level of intricate detail that would overwhelm and put off the average reader, who is more often than not little more than a student just doing some research or a casual reader.
According to WP:SUMMARY an article like French Revolution is meant to give an overview of all the events of the revolution (and there were many) in moderate detail, where there exist separate Main Articles going into full detail on specific events of the revolution (such as the Storming of the Bastille or First Republic which itself needs more expansion there). Certain sections in this article are so long they could be separate articles. I hate to point fingers and creep into personal attack territory, but while ongoing gradual expansion has been occurring over time through various users, it is evident in the Revision history that this article has been rapidly bloated in just the past few weeks by one person who added new sections and new levels of detail which I, upon reading, do not feel are fit for this particular article. There is also a journalistic and melodramatic writing style evident which includes excessive use of idiomatic, informal expressions that do not follow Wikipedia's writing style guidelines.
Nivose, I don't doubt your good faith and don't necessarily oppose the content itself, but there are Main article links scattered throughout this summary article, and I think you would be better off relocating such specific detail to those articles. And if you do relocate them, I would also suggest modifying the tone and writing style of the content to sound less like a news article from the era or student essay and more like a neutral, formal encyclopedia. I would like to get other editors' opinions on this so we can quickly get a consensus on whether the article needs to be shortened, which is why I opened an RFC. Thank you. Cadiomals ( talk) 06:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I just ran the 'Page size' tool, here are the results:
So, per WP:SIZERULE and keeping in mind readability issues and technical issues, a 121 kB prose size indicates that the article needs to be edited down to a more manageable size. At the moment I am not sure how I would accomplish that - I'll need to take a closer look at the content over the next few days or so. Shearonink ( talk) 14:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The level of detail in this section makes it a poor fit for a survey article on a huge history topic like this. I want to move it into a standalone article (title: Women in the French Revolution). OttawaAC ( talk) 03:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
My rationale for this section is the same as for the section on the role of women. I want to move it into a standalone article. OttawaAC ( talk) 03:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, we are looking to expand upon the Montagnard section of this page by linking to its child page more directly. On the Montagnard child page we would like to include information on their policies, history of conflict with Girondins, and overall philosophies. Is this something that would make a good addition? Vendemiaire ( talk) 15:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
We recommend that a section be created labeled “De-Christiaization and iconoclastic tendencies during the Terror”. It has come to our attention that a number of important events and anti-theological dispositions during the terror have been fundamentally excluded from the present page. We thus would welcome a chance to offer three points of analysis that we believe will contribute to the already informative page you oversee. These points are 1) A more precise description of the transformation of Notre Dame into the Temple of Reason, 2) The removal of fine art with depictions of the former monarchy as divine, as carried out by Revolutionary activist groups during the Terror, and 3) Ritual burnings of religious volumes, and their replacement with enlightenment texts in public thought and discourse.
Hercules1794 ( talk) 02:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Hercules1794 Hercules1794 ( talk) 02:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
We want expand upon the influence of Enlightenment thought present during the French Revolution and how these ideas may have impacted the slave revolt in Saint Domingue. Specifically, we hope to further explain and explore which aspects of Enlightenment thought were present in motivations underpinning the slave rebellion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dufrenchrev ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
This is another long, detailed section that doesn't fit in a survey article. Wikipedia has a lot of other articles called "Impact of...", so I want to leave the first couple paragraphs of this section here, and move the rest of the section to a new standalone article, "Impact of the French Revolution". OttawaAC ( talk) 03:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I am concerned about the section below.
Battles over religion, and closely related issues such as church-controlled schools, raged into the 20th century. By the 21st century angry debates exploded over the presence of any Muslim religious symbols in schools, such as the headscarves for which Muslim girls could be expelled.ref
It seems to suggest a huge issue. I know that there was a big enough debate on veil bans at one point that there were English headlines, but the tone seems overly alarmist here. What is known about the source (Abdulkader H. Sinno (2009). Muslims in Western Politics. Indiana UP. pp. 55–56.) and is it reliable? Furthermore, is it remotely relevant to the French Revolution? Disclaimer: I've never been to France and am unknowledgeable about the issue.
I have copied much of the text from "French Rev." dated 14 April 2014 and written by user:Nivose to French Directory, where I hope people will read it. Rjensen ( talk) 10:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The cultural depictions always need a separate section because there are many of them, mine was just the first Cote d'Azur 08:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur ( talk • contribs)
"After he was executed, some of the citizens who witnessed the beheading ran forth to have their clothes soaked in the late King's blood, dripping from his head. [1]"
Why should this sentence of an event recognised by historians - and not only by "non-expert" Albert Camus - be removed from text? - "bloody stuff", maybe, but the French Revolution was a "bloody affair", no need here to be politically correct.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 13:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
While reading this article I came across the term "Financial Dictatorship" and was thoroughly confused. Could anyone shed some light on this phrase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.210.145 ( talk) 08:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Two things. First, the article says this:
Is this quantifiable? The AR page says 7,800 troops sent to aid the Colonies and at least one ship. Doesn't sound like much financial strain. Is the above statement slanted towards a particular viewpoint?
Also, I'm curious if the American Revolution had any effect on the thinking of the revolutionaries in France. That is, was it influential? If so, why leave it out? Seems like there was some interchange of ideas and at the very least Ben Franklin spent a lot of time in Paris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynasteria ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
since this is one of the most important topics in world history, I added a further reading section which will point users to the main reference books and scholarly studies, many of which will be available in typical academic libraries Rjensen ( talk) 04:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
It can be argued Napoleon was not a dictator as First Consul. A dictator, in Rome, had both decreed and applied the law; moreoever, he was not elected by the people. In no sense, then, can Napoleon be called a dictator. Actually, on the contrary, if democracy is a system under which the whole people confides the government to magistrates of its choice elected for a limited period, then by the new Constitution France would be entering upon democracy. Although much of the governmental power was on Bonaparte, he did not wield absolute and supreme power, and his actions were very much limited by a intact government.
Although that all-powerful position of First Consul had the power to propose legislation, it was the specialized sections of the Council of State that wrote them: finance, legislation, war, navy, interior. There was no secrecy; the ministers attended the meetings and the consuls' approval was required to enact a law.
Either way, however, for the sake of being neutral, the text:
"This effectively led to Bonaparte's dictatorship and eventually (in 1804) to his proclamation as Empereur (emperor), which brought to a close the specifically republican phase of the French Revolution."
Should be replaced by:
"This effectively led to Bonaparte becoming the leader of France and eventually (in 1804) to his proclamation as Empereur (emperor), which brought to a close the specifically republican phase of the French Revolution."
I could also argue that Napoleon was still very much the republican that he was before becoming Emperor, but that is a discussion for another time.
-Talon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.19.17 ( talk) 23:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
What were the chief reasons of Necker's failures? It wasn't very well explained. TYelliot ( talk) 15:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
This line (from the Pre-revolution Financial Crisis section) "Necker published a report to support this claim that underestimated the deficit by roughly 36,000 livres, and proposed restricting the spending power of the parlements." may be incorrect in regards to the underestimated amount. 36,000 livres seems like a trivial amount compared to the budgets of the day, which seem to be in the hundreds of millions (at least, from what I could find in the Jaques Necker article). Perhaps there is a source for this figure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.7.205 ( talk) 18:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I am thinking about adding more on David's portrayal of revolutionary events. He's an important figure in cultural and political events and really deserves more attention. ClioFR ( talk) 05:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I am proposing an expansion on symbolism during the French Revolution. The figure of Hercules was a central figure of the monarchy and was then adapted to be a symbol of revolutionary glory. I think that this topic can be a useful tool to show how classical mythology was used during the Revolution. It can also show how revolutionary leaders still kept remnants of the Monarchy. Wavesworld ( talk) 17:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
We are a small class group that is looking to contribute a small article about some symbols of the French Revolution. We are currently planning to describe the uses and reasons behind the red bonnet and Phrygian cap; the triangle; and the serpent. We chose one symbol from each group of symbol creation- either to replace an older religious symbol, to make a symbol that is easily recognizable, or to introduce a new working-class symbol. Our alternative plan is to work with another class group that is studying the French Republic seal, and we would analyze the symbols used in the seal.
Solidnitrogen ( talk) 17:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
In the paragraph about the Civil Constitution of the Church, why in the world is the latter half of that paragraph about stuff that happened after the National Assembly was dissolved, under Napoleon's rule? That stuff, like the Concordat of 1801, should be relocated to the subsection relating to Napoleon, not the National Assembly.
98.82.128.180 ( talk) 16:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course, we must recognize that Louis XVI was publicly supportive of the Constitution of 1791 (having sworn an oath to uphold it) while leaving behind a letter abjuring his oath on the flight to Montmedy. His wife was also exposed as a spy, having reported to France's enemies of troop movements, etc. Presenting him as merely 'opposed to the course of the revolution' and offering no other explanation of the flight to Varennes (in fact, the article suggests he intentionally avoided 'treacherous' relationships (!)) is a de facto exoneration of what, to many French people at the time was high treason. This is a neutral assessment because this is how it appeared to people at the time. The assessment in the article is more or less pro-Louis. Maurizio689 ( talk) 21:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I notice there are quite a few requests for citation on some basic facts about the course of the Revolution. I believe most of this could be cited from Mignet, if anyone wishes to take the time to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to say: glad to see recent use of Soboul and Lefebvre as sources. I've read them, but it was decades ago and I don't have copies. - Jmabel | Talk 18:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The intro paragraph states: The modern era has unfolded in the shadow of the French Revolution. The growth of republics and liberal democracies, the spread of secularism, the development of modern ideologies and the invention of total war[2] all mark their birth during the Revolution. --
This intro is very Eurocentric. Liberal democracies existed before the French Revolution (The United States), secularism was not born during this time, the "development of modern ideologies" is ambiguous, and "total war" certainly wasn't invented during this period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.56.170 ( talk) 06:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
In order to prevent User:Hashem sfarim from getting into trouble from edit-warring and lack of assuming good faith, I am starting this section. I am not in favour of the addition of a list of a chronological table of the events to this article. The article is long enough as it is, and all the events mentioned are included in the actual article text. To my knowledge chronological tables are only used in articles as a temporary solution to include important facts that have yet to be added to the actual article text. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 22:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I reverted this addition to the lead. Not that an expansion isn't warranted, it may be considering the length of the article, but the wording was not encyclopedic and it also just repeated much of the information already contained in the lead. It also contained too many peacock expressions ("feeble", "fabled", "epic" etc) as well as weaselwording (enlightenment and rightful hierarchy in what looks like sarcastic apostrophes). It is a positive thing not to use too dry a prose, but it can also get too flowery. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 19:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
hj0othihrhjibrderhewhgrpobuerpobiur4n]igw herro prease
207.239.82.254 ( talk) 17:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Not done: No specific request apparent.
Lazulilasher (
talk)
17:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} In the introductory section, please replace
French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from radical left-wing political groups and the masses on the streets.
with
French society underwent and epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from an impoverished and desperate peasant class.
CTJen ( talk) 15:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
How about...
The adjectives of "impoverished" and "desperate" are as leading as if the text would state something along the lines of...
Shearonink ( talk) 06:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Amazing how a few words can mean so much! I've pulled out my copy of Michel Vovelle's "La Revolution Francaise," which is a standard introductory textbook for college students in France, and attempts to integrate classical, republican and revisionist work (it was recommended to me by a professor of French history and specifically revolutionary history while I was in France; she was something of a "post-revisionist"). In a section titled "The three revolutions of 1789," Vovelle writes,
"One can speak of three [revolutions] in the summer of 1789: an institutional or parliamentary revolution at the top, a municipal or urban revolution, and a peasant revolution. From a pedagogical perspective this presentation can prove useful... [a few pages later] That which we call the peasant revolution is not a repetition of the urban: it has, according to the evidence, its own rhythm, and "war aims." After the initial uprisings in the spring of 1789, agrarian revolts expanded into many regions (in the north, en Hainaut, in the west, in the bocage of Normandy, just as in the east, Haut-Alsace and Franche-Comte, and then Maconnais): primarily anti-nobility, often burning down castles, violent, and sometimes forcefully repressed. In the context of these localized revolts, the second half of July saw the emergence of another movement both similar but also different: the Great Fear, that would involve over half of the territory of France. This collective panic can be interpreted as the altered echo, repeated in the countrysides, of the urban revolutions. This trope is both simple and complex; the villagers had run for their weapons at the announcement of imaginary dangers: Piedmontese in the Alps, English on the coast, 'brigands' everywhere. Propagated by contact, this fear soon dissipated, but extended within a few days to the entire realm. It awakened the agrarian revolt and was prolonged by the pillaging of castles and destruction, by fire, of seigniorial privileges. In this light, the Great Fear is more than a movement, as argues Michelet, "come from the depths of ages:" it expresses the mobilization of peasant masses and symbolizes their official entry into the Revolution."
Vovelle, Michel, "La Revolution Francaise: 1789-1799," pp.16-18. Armand Colin, Paris: 2006
While the Great Fear can be and is interpreted in many ways, most historians recognize that there was a large scale mobilization of the peasantry in the the summer of 1789 that preceded (and perhaps also followed) the events of 4 August. Because an epic transformation" of French society includes the abolition of feudalism, which is not unrelated to the burning of castles in the countryside by peasants, a reasonable change to the current text might simply be the following:
"French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from radical or left-wing political groups, masses on the streets, and peasants in the countryside."
As to "radical" and "left-wing," I find it difficult to argue that the Jacobins in general or Montagnards would not be described by both terms, especially in the context of the 18th century. - Darouet ( talk) 21:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence doesn't seem to make much sense.
"The French Revolution, sometimes distinguished as the 'Great French Revolution', was a period of radical social and political upheaval in French and European."
It should be "... radical social and political upheaval in France and Europe."
174.93.67.107 (
talk)
21:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeesh. Fixed. Thanks! SteveStrummer ( talk) 21:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a small point, but the reference to democracy has been removed from the first paragraph. It was removed because "it sounds judgmental." However the term in this case is not being employed as a value judgement (and I grant that this can be done in various contexts) but rather describes the transition from an absolute monarchy in 1789 to census suffrage and then universal male suffrage in 1793-94. Any objections to my placing the word back in? - Darouet ( talk) 22:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Darouet has asked me to comment on the edit that I made back in May of 2006 viz. "a major turning point in the history of Western democracy—from the age of absolutism and aristocracy, to the age of the citizenry as the dominant political force." According to Darouet, this later evolved to "Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy - of monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority - were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship, inalienable rights, as well as nationalism and (briefly) democracy," although he didn't say whether I was responsible for the second form of the idea. Quite honestly, I have no recollection of making either of those edits, let alone what my reasoning was in making them. Frankly, it sounds like I plagiarized some source to get the first text. All I can say is that it was five years ago and this is not an article that I have been actively involved in since.
That said, I do think that the French Revolution was a "a major turning point in the history of Western democracy". It needs to be included in a list that includes the Magna Carta, the English Revolution and the American Revolution. IMO, the debate about whether or not democracy existed, even briefly, during the French Revolution is perhaps missing the point. The problem with the debate is that it centers on whether or not democracy existed while the sentence is talking about "old ideas" being "abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles". Thus, we should be talking about the ideals that were in play, not the actuality that failed to achieve those ideals. From this perspective, I don't think nationalism belongs in this list as I believe that is a development that arose in the mid-nineteenth century (around the time of the formation of Germany and Italy although arguably earlier with the independence of Greece and the Megali Idea). However, I do think democracy is an "Enlightenment principle" and therefore should be included in the sentence.
I also note that the end of the introduction makes the important point: "The growth of republics and liberal democracies, the spread of secularism, the development of modern ideologies and the invention of total war[3] all mark their birth during the Revolution." Once again, it's not a question of how much democracy actually existed during the French Revolution. It's a question of whether democracy was one of the driving principles and whether later democratic movements looked back at the French Revolution and drew inspiration from it. I note that the English Revolution did depose and execute a monarch but that the dynastic line was ultimately restored. The American Revolution did establish a lasting democracy but it did not depose a monarch. The French Revolution deposed and executed a monarch, ending his dynastic line but failed to establish a lasting democracy. For all its failures, the French Revolution had an important influence on the revolutionary and democratic movements of 19th century Europe.
-- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 16:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC) "Although the British had pioneered constitutional and representative government, it was the French Revolution of 1789 that most dramatically challenged political absolutism and popularized democratic ideas throughout the continent." [3] - What I said. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 17:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Because we haven't come up with a rationale for defining democracy as something unrelated to suffrage and representation, I still don't see the rationale for removing the term democracy from the original sentence being discussed: "Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy - of monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority - were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship, inalienable rights and democracy." - Darouet ( talk) 17:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like to consider adding a small sub-section on the counter-revolutionary activity in Lyon. I see that there is a page on the Revolt of Lyon Against the National Convention, but I feel that a brief synopsis and link under the counter-revolution section of the main French Revolution page explaining the importance of this event would be appropriate and beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedd2736 ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reference 93 is wrong, universal suffrage did not exist in the 1793 and the reference itself does not indicate this. Page 244 of the Oxford History of the French Revolution, Doyle states: "The constitution of 1793 provided a unicameral legislature elected annually by direct manhood suffrage, and the legislature would choose the executive council" The sentence "Furthermore, the universal suffrage of 1793 was replaced by limited suffrage based on property." should read as "Furthermore, the manhood suffrage of 1793 was replaced by limited suffrage based on property."
Jgbh ( talk) 21:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Done The phrase 'universal male suffrage' was already used twice in the article, so I used that in place of 'manhood suffrage'. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
23:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
In 1793, Revolutionary forces captured Monaco and it remained under direct French control until 1814, when the Grimaldis returned to the throne. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/2530539.stm http://www.monaco-consulate.com/index.php/about/history/
Thanks, B-watchmework ( talk) 18:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
At the end of the article, it says, "The Revolution represented the most significant and dramatic challenge to political absolutism up to that point in history". I think the ancient Athenians would have a thing or two to say about that statement. They were experimenting with similar ideas before France (or liberalism) even existed. So can we please temper the language in that sentence? 108.175.231.17 ( talk) 03:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence is pretty awkward and redundant and gives a bad impression of an otherwise solid article.
"The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a major impact on France and throughout the rest of Europe"
...could perhaps become:
"The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that profoundly effected the rest of Europe"
...or even:
"The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a major impact on (France and) the rest of Europe"
Questions to consider: -Do we need to restate the effects of the French Revolution on France? Isn't it implied? -How can we structure that phrase to include French as well as non-French effects of the revolution?
Cogito Ergo Sum ( talk) 13:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
On the veery first sentence, (The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a major impact on France and throughout the rest of Europe) neeeds commas between radical, social, and political upheaval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecommander15 ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I have removed "Monaco" from the infobox, because it is not relevant in connection with this. What happened was that the French forces invaded Monaco in 1793 and deposed the Grimaldis, similar incidents occurred in the Lowlands, Italy and some German states, but there is no need to list all them here, as that is all part of the French Revolutionary Wars, not a part of the French Revolution itself. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 10:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fourth paragraph of the Introduction, eighth line down, please capitalize "h" in "he" at the beginning of the fourth sentence in the paragraph. In the subequent sentence, please add an "e" to "achievemnt" betwen the "m" and "n".
In the "causes" section, first paragraph, twelfth line down, please change "the France" to either "the French" or "France". In the subsequent paragraph, please add "was" or another simple past tense state of being verb between "Versailles" and "isolated".
In the "see also", under the "general" subheading, please add a hyperlink to this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools'_Day 119.57.67.171 ( talk) 06:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The article reads: "Women had no political rights in pre-Revolutionary France; they could not vote or hold any political office. They were considered "passive" citizens; forced to rely on men to determine what was best for them in the government. It was the men who defined these categories, and women were forced to accept male domination in the political"
This text insinuates that, after the Revolution, women would have received some political rights. They got nothing. The notion of "passive" citizens is a well-defined revolutionary term, not one from the Ancien Régime. It denoted those who had not enough money to pay a minimum of taxes - peasants and labourers-, those younger than 25, women, servants, and those who were bankrupt. "Passive citizens" could not vote for the revolutionary Assemblée and could not be member of the militia (Garde nationale").
Before the Revolution, (single) women had some voting rights: noble owners of a territory and abesses voted for representatives in the Estates General. After the Revolution, no woman was allowed to vote,
Should we not stick to facts, and remove this misleading text, even if it seems to be taken from a "reference"?
Riyadi (
talk)
18:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
If it's just misleading but otherwise correct, it should be clarified not removed. --
Roly (
talk)
19:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it is not correct. If we would take away "pre-", the phrase would almost change into its opposite, but it would become correct.
Riyadi (
talk)
21:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Marquis de la Fayette is called both La Fayette and Lafayette in the section "Completing the constitution", nowhere else in the article is the latter version used, so maybe change it to La Fayette? Transmogriff ( talk) 16:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
"Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history, and the end of the early modern period, which started around 1500, is traditionally attributed to the onset of the French Revolution in 1789."
No. It had very little impact outside France and the article doesn't indicate otherwise.
"The Revolution represented the most significant and dramatic challenge to political absolutism up to that point in history and spread democratic ideals throughout Europe and ultimately the world."
No. What people took away from the French Revolution was its bloodshed and dictatorship. The spread of democratic ideals was already being done by parliamentary democracy in Britain (a more powerful and influential country) and in particular by the success of the American Republic. 24.44.252.192 ( talk) 19:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)captcrisis
The first "result" is more of a "recap." Can it be replaced with the following two points:
In this article it is said that The Declaration of Rights of Man extended rights to women and slaves when in fact it did not. It strictly included men, similar to the Declaration of Independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.204.57 ( talk) 10:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand this article is undergoing/listed for GAR. If I may suggest an alteration to the page's writer, it needs much more focus on its wider (international) historical context and immediate legacy. Other revolutions of 1789 - the Brabant Revolution and Liège Revolution to name just two are much more directly relevant legacies of the French revolution itself (as opposed to the later revolutionary rule) than 1848 or the Louisiana Purchase, which are currently named. Brigade Piron ( talk) 22:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I find this in the section about the Directory (1795-1799):
"In this way the army and its successful general, Napoleon Bonaparte eventually gained total power."
Please make one of these changes:
If Napoleon Bonaparte was the only successful general in the army at that time, add comma after "Bonaparte".
If there were other successful generals in the army at that time, remove comma after "general".
128.63.16.20 ( talk) 16:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure this article is very good. However, for me, it is just a load of data, of facts, it does not constitute information as I know it. I just wanted to find a "potted" history - a chronology, with key events, facts and people, so that I could then delve deeper at my leisure. Could someone compile one of these at the start of the article (with intra-page links - however you do these)?
Also, I notice on the disambiguation page that there were other French Revolutions. Again, an "idiot's guide" would have been useful, with key dates, facts and people (and a brief brief of how the various revolutions interlink).
Thanks DrWhoFan ( talk) 09:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section revolution and the church, the phrase firt-day-of-the-week should be changed to: first-day-of-the-week.
thank you
Ben84jazz ( talk) 18:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Done Thanks for pointing that out -
Arjayay (
talk)
19:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I see under the symbols section "The symbol of Hercules was first adopted by the Old Regime to represent the monarchy." The source is listed as Hunt 1984, 89.
However page 89 in Hunt does not make any mention of Hercules, and when Hercules is discussed later in the chapter it is only as a symbol of the people, not the monarchy. Perhaps a different source should be listed here? Jimpudar ( talk) 21:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)jim
Do any person believe the human race has regressed rather tham progressed in last 50 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.207.132 ( talk) 20:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I can help to improve this page by translating some part of the French page. But my English is not perfect, so if somebody is motivated to help me with that (or on another article), please answer me ;) Nanaki13( talk) 13:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I am opposed to the expansions of content in recent weeks and addition of high levels of detail that have now made this summary article far too long: The article has now reached a level of intricate detail that would overwhelm and put off the average reader, who is more often than not little more than a student just doing some research or a casual reader.
According to WP:SUMMARY an article like French Revolution is meant to give an overview of all the events of the revolution (and there were many) in moderate detail, where there exist separate Main Articles going into full detail on specific events of the revolution (such as the Storming of the Bastille or First Republic which itself needs more expansion there). Certain sections in this article are so long they could be separate articles. I hate to point fingers and creep into personal attack territory, but while ongoing gradual expansion has been occurring over time through various users, it is evident in the Revision history that this article has been rapidly bloated in just the past few weeks by one person who added new sections and new levels of detail which I, upon reading, do not feel are fit for this particular article. There is also a journalistic and melodramatic writing style evident which includes excessive use of idiomatic, informal expressions that do not follow Wikipedia's writing style guidelines.
Nivose, I don't doubt your good faith and don't necessarily oppose the content itself, but there are Main article links scattered throughout this summary article, and I think you would be better off relocating such specific detail to those articles. And if you do relocate them, I would also suggest modifying the tone and writing style of the content to sound less like a news article from the era or student essay and more like a neutral, formal encyclopedia. I would like to get other editors' opinions on this so we can quickly get a consensus on whether the article needs to be shortened, which is why I opened an RFC. Thank you. Cadiomals ( talk) 06:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I just ran the 'Page size' tool, here are the results:
So, per WP:SIZERULE and keeping in mind readability issues and technical issues, a 121 kB prose size indicates that the article needs to be edited down to a more manageable size. At the moment I am not sure how I would accomplish that - I'll need to take a closer look at the content over the next few days or so. Shearonink ( talk) 14:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The level of detail in this section makes it a poor fit for a survey article on a huge history topic like this. I want to move it into a standalone article (title: Women in the French Revolution). OttawaAC ( talk) 03:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
My rationale for this section is the same as for the section on the role of women. I want to move it into a standalone article. OttawaAC ( talk) 03:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, we are looking to expand upon the Montagnard section of this page by linking to its child page more directly. On the Montagnard child page we would like to include information on their policies, history of conflict with Girondins, and overall philosophies. Is this something that would make a good addition? Vendemiaire ( talk) 15:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
We recommend that a section be created labeled “De-Christiaization and iconoclastic tendencies during the Terror”. It has come to our attention that a number of important events and anti-theological dispositions during the terror have been fundamentally excluded from the present page. We thus would welcome a chance to offer three points of analysis that we believe will contribute to the already informative page you oversee. These points are 1) A more precise description of the transformation of Notre Dame into the Temple of Reason, 2) The removal of fine art with depictions of the former monarchy as divine, as carried out by Revolutionary activist groups during the Terror, and 3) Ritual burnings of religious volumes, and their replacement with enlightenment texts in public thought and discourse.
Hercules1794 ( talk) 02:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Hercules1794 Hercules1794 ( talk) 02:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
We want expand upon the influence of Enlightenment thought present during the French Revolution and how these ideas may have impacted the slave revolt in Saint Domingue. Specifically, we hope to further explain and explore which aspects of Enlightenment thought were present in motivations underpinning the slave rebellion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dufrenchrev ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
This is another long, detailed section that doesn't fit in a survey article. Wikipedia has a lot of other articles called "Impact of...", so I want to leave the first couple paragraphs of this section here, and move the rest of the section to a new standalone article, "Impact of the French Revolution". OttawaAC ( talk) 03:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I am concerned about the section below.
Battles over religion, and closely related issues such as church-controlled schools, raged into the 20th century. By the 21st century angry debates exploded over the presence of any Muslim religious symbols in schools, such as the headscarves for which Muslim girls could be expelled.ref
It seems to suggest a huge issue. I know that there was a big enough debate on veil bans at one point that there were English headlines, but the tone seems overly alarmist here. What is known about the source (Abdulkader H. Sinno (2009). Muslims in Western Politics. Indiana UP. pp. 55–56.) and is it reliable? Furthermore, is it remotely relevant to the French Revolution? Disclaimer: I've never been to France and am unknowledgeable about the issue.
I have copied much of the text from "French Rev." dated 14 April 2014 and written by user:Nivose to French Directory, where I hope people will read it. Rjensen ( talk) 10:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)