![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sentence:
Women forced thekir way into the political sphere.
Has an obvious spelling error ("their") Enigmoid ( talk) 02:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add a sub-heading on colonial uprisings with a few sentences talking about the Haitian Revolution as a result of Enlightenment thought in the Revolution. I would also like to add a link from the French Revolution page to the Haitian Revolution in this area.
Dufrenchrev ( talk) 15:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
French Revolutionary Wars has been nominated by WP:TAFI. All contributions improving this article welcome! Cheers, walk victor falk talk 04:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is the relationship between these two revolutions really downplayed?
The Americans did not adopt any of the reforms of the French Revolution since few applied to the new republic.
Um, maybe that's because most of those reforms were already implemented in their revolution
It seems very obvious to me that the two Revolutions were really one and the same. I think there should be more reference to this.
CJK ( talk) 22:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It was an absolute Parliament as far as the American colonists were concerned--see the Declaratory Act. And to clarify, I'm not talking about how either revolution influenced the other, I am pointing out that their nature was fairly close.
CJK ( talk) 19:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It was an absolute Parliament as far as the American colonists were concernedis not good enough. There is no such thing as "an absolute Parliament". :) Right or wrong in Parliament -
A parliament is a legislature. More generally, "parliament" may simply refer to a democratic government's legislature.
The line "Historians have seldom praised the Directory; it was a government of self-interest rather than virtue, thus losing any claim on idealism." appears twice in the article. 50.171.25.90 ( talk) 03:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
In the "Reign of Terror" section, "exaggerate" is misspelled as "exhaggerate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfriar ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 May 2009
also, in the "financial costs" section, the page states that the french were in debt of "1,000 to 2,000 million livres" I beleive that it is supposed to say 1-2 billion livres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.175.115 ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 12 October 2011
In the "Role of Women" section the following sentence appears : "The women demanded equality for men and then moved on to a demand for the and of male domination." It should be "end of male domination." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.236.182 ( talk)
In the second paragraph of the introduction the following two sentences appear : "A republic was proclaimed in September 1792. In a momentous events with international condemnation, King Louis XVI was executed on 21 January 1793." The latter sentence should read : ' In a momentous event followed by international condemnation, King Louis XVI was executed on January 21, 1793. ' The sentence as it is has a misuse of a plural, and the condemnation (so-called) obviously would have followed the act, not attended it. 50.14.236.182 ( talk) 06:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second paragraph of the "Causes" section begins "By the 1790s the Marxist class interpretation had largely been abandoned among scholars." Please change this to "By the 1970s the Marxist class interpretation had largely been abandoned among scholars," as it seems likely the current sentence is a typo, since Marx wasn't alive in the 1790s, and of course there could be no Marxist scholars then. Thank you! 73.40.43.27 ( talk) 15:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Freemasonry isn't mentioned once in this article even though many impartial historians and Freemasons themselves acknowledge the important role they played in bringing about the Revolution. For example, in Martin's History of France: The decline of the French monarchy (1866) he writes (p. 481): [1]
And he goes on for several pages describing the Masonic background to the Revolution. This seems to be a very taboo subject for some reason.
CJK ( talk) 16:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that this page was missing the obligatory homage to Murray Rothbard. Since he's on every other political page, I figured I'd drop the key quote from that most important of Wikisages here: Murray Rothbard said of the French Revolution, "The result was enormous strides for freedom and the prosperity unleashed by the consequent Industrial Revolution." [1] There. Somebody should get that in the article stat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.247.77 ( talk) 05:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
"The Revolution profoundly altered the course of modern history, triggering the global decline of theocracies and absolute monarchies while replacing them with republics and democracies. Through the Revolutionary Wars, it unleashed a wave of global conflicts that extended from the Caribbean to the Middle East. Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history."
Um, no.
Democracy was already in practice in the United States and, in effect, in Great Britain. Both were greater inspirations to republics and democracies than the French Revolution, which quickly devolved into a terrorist state and in short order resulted in a dictatorship and then a restoration of monarchy. France didn't become a republic for almost another hundred years. 47.20.162.46 ( talk) 23:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)captcrisis
Could somebody work the guillotine into the lead? I'm surprised this most iconic of Revolutionary items doesn't even find a mention here.— indopug ( talk) 02:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Should we change Infobox Historical Event to Infobox Civil Conflict? Just an brainstormed idea. 173.180.3.128 ( talk) 15:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I feel this article vastly understates the importance of the American Revolution on France, it isn't even mentioned here in spite of the fact that numerous French authors admit it had a significant influence. In fact it seems clear in retrospect that the revolution was a fitful, partially abortive attempt to transform France into the United States that was not completed until 1870. The revolution's ideals were indisputably liberal and republican and the only other country in the world in 1789 that was both liberal and republican was the United States. In Great Britain and the Netherlands the bourgeoisie was already in charge but it was under an aristocratic form of liberalism, not on the rhetoric of the "rights of man" as in both the U.S. and France. CJK ( talk) 21:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
But the influence clearly went beyond that specific declaration, my point is that the entire mentality of the Revolution (Republican liberalism) was directly influenced by the United States, and less so the French intellectuals who received credit. This is documented in Francois Aulard's book. Few French intellectuals actually advocated republican liberalism. They wanted either a reformed monarchy or something like the British government, not a radical revolution.
CJK ( talk) 00:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The lead states that the Balls trigger[ed] the global decline of theocracies and absolute monarchies while replacing them with republics and democracies. Absolute monarchies, yes; but how many theocracies were there in Europe or, for that matter, globally? (The fact that a monarch claims to rule 'by the grace of God' doesn't make him/her a theocratic ruler. I think that the reference to theocracies should be removed. Norvo ( talk) 23:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I don't know how the lewrockwell link came to appear under this! Norvo ( talk) 23:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@ UberCryxic: - Not to be too judgmental or anything, but the language you're insisting on is a pretty clear example of weaselly, un-encyclopedic narrative. It's opinion, not fact, and doesn't really provide the reader with any real information. Just because two historians, who happen to like the French Revolution, have said that the French Revolution is "widely regarded as the most important", doesn't mean we should put that into the article. Poor editorial discretion. NickCT ( talk) 15:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I want to make another point tangentially related to the sentence above. You're deleting some comments about the Marxist interpretations of the Revolution, claiming things like "assertions not supported by the sources." Soboul was the foremost Marxist historian of the Revolution in the 20th century. I am staring at La Revolution Francaise as I'm writing these words; he makes very clear where his interpretation (and others like him) comes from. So again, unless you have contradictory evidence that the Marxist interpretation was not important, what are you even doing? UBER (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
NickCT, I disagree with this edit [2] because historiographical information about the French Revolution is of great interest to readers, and Soboul is a major historian on this subject.
I agree that "most historians consider the French Revolution one of the most important events of human history," but NickCT is right that ideally, this should be sourced, considering WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE. - Darouet ( talk) 23:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
French Revolution. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It was not against the specific Christian traditions. It was not about the Catholic saints or deep religious beliefs. Rmtrevino ( talk) 14:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The French Revolution did result in decriminalisation of same-sex relationships. It resulted in the decriminalisation of male homosexual behaviour -- which is not the same thing.
A same-sex relationship might be between two men or between two women. Female homosexuality was never illegal in France; only *male* homosexual behaviour was criminalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.218.153 ( talk) 16:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
In the short piece about the impact on Ireland (under United Kingdom) - it should be added that the Revolution-inspired Wolfe Tone is considered the father of Irish republicanism and his movement inspired repeated attempts at rebellion and revolution which eventually ended in the partition of Ireland and independence for the southern 26 counties. All current non-Unionist Irish parties trace their ancestry back to Wolfe Tone's ideals. - 80.111.159.148 ( talk) 01:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Knowing little about the French revolution, my initial impression (which I imagine is a common one) was that the French king was an absolute monarch. But as I read this article I see that his attempts at tax reform were stymied at every turn by a legislative body that I had never even heard of. It would be good if the article could expand on this a little, because the existing context and explanation of this state of affairs is, I would argue, inadequate. Sylvain1972 ( talk) 18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on French Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on French Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Newberry French Revolution Collection Pamphlets The Newberry Library's French Revolution Collection consists of more than 30,000 pamphlets and more than 23,000 issues of 180 periodicals published between 1780 and 1810. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.229.8 ( talk) 12:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
A minor point, but surely the nobility was ENsured an adequate food supply, not INsured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.128.130 ( talk) 08:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
On the Wikipedia page entitled French Revolution under the section Storming the Bastille, it is stated that "...cries of Vive la Nation "Long live the Nation" changed to Vive le Roi "Long live the King".
However on the page entitled Storming of the Bastille under the section Aftermath it is stated that "...cries of "Long live the King" were changed to "Long live the Nation"."
These pages are referring to the same date and event.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasfd ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 June 2009
The Revolution overthrew the monarchy, established a *republic, catalyzed violent periods of political turmoil, and finally culminated in a dictatorship under Napoleon who brought many of its principles to areas he conquered in Western Europe and beyond.
Republic- a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. Women are people therefore this is not a republic by today's definition, it was not considered a republic by the women of that generation and likewise this was not democracy.
The French Republic did not allow 50 percent of its population to access any of that power. It is a common misconception or just misogynistic to think that the French Revolution resulted in true democracy - French women were not allowed the vote until 1946, long after Turkey.
2) Historians who do not consider the French Revolution as important would not mention it, so how do you grade this? Out of how many 'important' events? Who is on this panel of historians? Very subjective statement, France came long after Greece....and the Revolution was a half-attempt at the progress of human history. Western historians do not know the history of MOST OTHER human populations to any similar degree so I wonder how this statement came about, if it wasn't pure arrogance.
[??] Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history.[2][3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88octopus88 ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
there is a phrase in para 4 under Causes - the upper class was always insured a stable living - it would be better expressed as “the upper class was always assured a stable living” Robynpjenkins ( talk) 04:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Section 9.4 (Long Term Impact - United States) refers to the incumbent Jefferson administration of the United States in 1793 as "Republican", which is incorrect; the government was "Democratic-Republican", distinct from the Republican Party of Lincoln and of today, and more closely related to the Democratic party of Jackson and today. This should be changed to read "Democratic-Republican" or, if preferred, "Democratic" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.245.130.33 ( talk) 18:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I added an NPOV, because this article takes the freedom, without an appropriate back up of secondary sources, to express value judgment on the French revolution, which to all historians remains a deeply contentious issue. Hannah Arendt, of course, comes to mind (which the article does not even quote and seems not to be aware of) but hundreds more could be added. The Geopolitical order of Europe is not the result of the French Revolution, but the reaction to it, the Congress of Vienna. I express here my firm belief that the NPOV shall stay in place until serious, non-ideological scholarship, is used to back up what are otherwise rather vague and contentious claims.
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the sentence beginning "Habermas argued that...", "17th century" should be hyphenated, per MOS:CENTURY. 82.98.7.185 ( talk) 04:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The fifth paragraph begins :
After the Thermidorian Reaction, an executive council ...
I think it should be
After the Jacobins and Robespierre were overthrown in the Thermidorian Reaction, an executive council ...
Bruce Bodner bebgsurg@tmlp.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebgsurg ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
It currently reads "Overall, the Revolution did not greatly change the French business system, and probably helped freeze in place the horizons of the small business owner." The source referenced is not something I can view online so no idea how to fix this. "Probably" doesn't seem very encyclopedic. I looked up "horizons" and found it can mean "range of perception or experience" or "something that might be attained". Never saw it used in this way before. Also claiming it didn't greatly change the business system in the same section that list massive changes in said business system, seems contradictory. Dream Focus 13:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Information to be added or removed: Citation needed to the phrase "In an attempt to keep control of the process and prevent the Assembly from convening, Louis XVI ordered the closure of the Salle des États where the Assembly met, making an excuse...". Or alternative wording to avoid misinterpretation. To the effect of "In order to urgently confront the estates on a list of proposals for reform Louis XVI called for a grand séance royale, which would require the closure of the Salle des États, where the Assembly met, for a short period of time so..." Explanation of issue: Citation needed. I can find little evidence to support the argument that Louis XVI was actively trying to prevent the assembly from meeting.
References supporting change: Schama 'Citizens' 2004 Pg 358 Stewartmiller2001 ( talk) 11:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change ((Reunion)) to ((Réunion))
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Proudhon was an anarchist not a socialist 81.6.250.253 ( talk) 09:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I would like to develop a paragraph on Jacobinism on the following basis:
Jacobinism is an ideology developed and implemented during the French Revolution of 1789. In the words of F. Furet, in Penser la révolution française (quoted by Hoel in Introduction au Jacobinisme..., "Jacobinism is both an ideology and a power: a system of representations and a system of action." ("le jacobinisme est à la fois une idéologie et un pouvoir : un système de représentations et un système d’action" ) This ideology presents, according to Hoel, in L'idéologie jacobine, the following 6 characteristics: 1. Omnipotence of the State (« Omnipotence de l’État »); 2. Despotism of Paris (« Despotisme de Paris »); 3. Colonialism (« Colonialisme »); 4. Cultural genocide (« Génocide culturel »); 5. Rejection of the Social Contract (Rousseau) and federalism (Rejet du Contrat social (Rousseau) et du fédéralisme); 6. Hypocrisy, lies, double speeches (Hypocrisie, mensonge, double discours). -- Wordyhs ( talk) 20:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
This page used to explain the influence that the American Revolution had on the French people and how it stimulated the French Revolution. Now, the page has no mention whatsoever of the impact of the American Revolution on the French. Nor does it explain the ideals that the French derived from the Americans or the shared-values which led France to largely support the American Revolution. The United States was the first modern Western democracy, and the American Revolution began nearly thirty years before the French Revolution began.
This page also claims that the French Revolution began a 'global transition towards democracy'. That transition was started by the American Revolution, not the French Revolution. Furthermore, the French Revolution was only directly influential in Europe. It had no direct global influence. 021120x ( talk) 21:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
This is not a neutral article. 021120x ( talk) 21:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The introduction mentions that the Catholic Church was "de-established" during the Revolution. The correct technical term is "disestablish" and the word should therefore be "disestablished". 78.144.205.77 ( talk) 15:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ctrl+F for "September massacres" and "september massacre"
add link for these to /info/en/?search=September_Massacres 100.42.20.206 ( talk) 11:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The introduction states: "The French Revolution differed from other revolutions in being intended to benefit all humanity, rather than just the nation". However, later in the Long-term impact section it is quoted that the "French Revolution gave a great stimulus to the growth of modern nationalism".
While these are not mutually exclusive, I think the article might be deserving of some explanation of this. For instance, was this goal of the French Revolution clearly subverted by some members (Napoleon?)? Or was the initial goal more complicated than just "humanity > nation-states".
Irving David Rein ( talk) 22:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Citation needed to the phrase: "Despite succeeding in gaining independence for the 500000 thousand Colonies, France was severely indebted by the American Revolutionary War."
My suggestion is to add this link: https://www.worldbyisa.com/15-historical-places-related-to-the-french-revolution/ exactly this information in the 'French Revolution causes'section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldbyisa ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Napoleon fundamentally does not represent the ideas of the French revolution. Quite the contrary. It was therefor a weakness of the revolution period to end in Napoleon. However the article does not make tha clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.235.125.68 ( talk) 08:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I question the accuracy of the Aulard quotation in section #Long term impact. It doesn't seem to closely match the Aulard sources (French or English) that I found. I can't find the "as quoted in" source (Tilley, 1922), but both Aulard's French original (1901) [2] (also in French Wikisource), and an English translation (1910) [3] are available in full-text versions online. The ref gives: Aulard in Arthur Tilley, ed. (1922) p. 115. Searching Aulard's original, the closest thing I could find is from Chapter 2. Unless I'm looking at the wrong page entirely in the Aulard original and translation, but I don't see a source in the #Sources or #Bibliography sections for Tilley, so I can't compare it; if anyone knows what that is, please share. Mathglot ( talk) 04:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
References
C'est qu'une première révolution économique et sociale s'était opérée ou allait s'opérer par la destruction de la propriété féodale, par l'abolition du droit d'aînesse, par la vente des biens nationaux, par une moins injuste constitution et répartition de la propriété. L'ensemble des Français furent satisfaits de cette révolution, et ne virent pas au delà, parce que les plus criantes de leurs souffrances venaient d'être calmées
Such an idea scarcely occurred, at first, to anyone. A first revolution, social and economic, had taken place, or was about to do so, through the destruction of the feudal system, the abolition of the right of primogeniture, the sale of the national properties, and a less unjust constitution and partition of property. The generality of Frenchmen were satisfied with this revolution, and saw no farther; the most crying injustice, their more serious complaints, having been just righted.
So, as a complete newcomer to the page I am having trouble determining the source of all this contention. Is it this paragraph?
I find this generally inoffensive, but have in the past found that some people have other historical paradigms than I do. Is the question whether there is any relationship between the American and the French revolutions?
By the way, the lead is unquestionably too impenetrable and long. I spent several centuries on the French Revolution in high school ;) not that I claim any of that a reliable source, mind you, but I found the lede hard to follow, and I've been taken through all that many times already. LMK Elinruby ( talk) 09:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
A couple of questions:
Neither lede mentions two events that I myself think of as seminal:
I am not advocating that we add them, at least not yet, especially since the current english lede contradicts #2, but that if you asked me today to sit down and write about the French Revolution, those would a least be in the first draft. I was in fact taught that Lafayette was important, but I kind of agree that he was a major figure in the American revolution, and more minor in the French. But note that the French narrative of the French is much more complex than the American one, with many players. That's just my thoughts coming in. I realize that there seems to be a long history to this argument??, but maybe restating the actual point of discussion would be helpful to more than just me. And no, I haven't read all three articles, I freely admit it, and will go work on that some more now. But I have read all both ledes, and they are definitely different. Elinruby ( talk) 10:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Just noting some repeated changes, in case somebody wants to object. I do not intend to die on any hill for these, but believe they are good changes. I normally wouldn't take them to the talk page, but since there is currently strife...Nor is this intended as some sort of scolding, just notification that I am now also making changes based on these style conventions, though only when there are a lot of the together, or I am editing anyway for ambiguity or awkwardness.
Lede says:
and also, above that:
Body says: "On 9 November 1799, the Coup of 18 Brumaire replaced the five Directors with the French Consulate, Bonaparte, Sieyès, and Roger Ducos; most historians consider this the end point of the French Revolution" French Revolution#The Directory; 1795–1799
Also, in lede:
In body: "On 17th, the Law of Suspects ordered the arrest of suspected "enemies of freedom", initiating what became known as the "Terror"." French Revolution#First Republic 1792–1795##Terror
This is a separate issue from the current RfC, of course, but should be addressed. Elinruby ( talk) 08:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
"Juring" offends my eyes. Is this based on sources? Surely not? I suggest " jureur (oath-taker)". °btw, I have made several minor style changes, mostly concerned with a complete name for people on first reference, which I assume is not controversial, and flagged a couple of ambiguities for later attention by myself or someone else. Elinruby ( talk) 12:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
That's what I was wondering, whether it was bad translation or just that old a word. Thanks. I'll try to find a reference for the usage and put it where it is introduced. Or if you have one handy, that would be helpful. Elinruby ( talk) 23:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I believe it was originally "juring" i objected to, because it looked like an English gerund built onto a French verb. The last time I looked, and I don't care about this enough to double-check, I think it was "non-juring". Perhaps it always was, or perhaps someone changed it. In any event, this renders moot the "opposite meaning" problem I was talking about. I still don't like the usage but I'm considering whether it is correct, and simply very old. My current thought is that either way it is obscure and jarring, and meaningless to me, an editor with an extensive vocabulary in several dialects of of these languages. "Juror" is better than "juring" in this respect since it is at least definitely English, but likely to confuse non-expert readers as it is now strongly associated with judicial settings. If there is an authority for using in *in this historical context*, not one a century earlier in another country, I suppose it's fine, but even if it is technically correct it's still an archaic and possibly anachronistic usage that impedes the readability of the text, whereas good Saxon alternatives exist. This is my point. I have not changed the text, but that is what I think of the wording. I suggest that this is much less important an issue than the length of the text... Elinruby ( talk) 03:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
We sometimes get so bogged down in minutiae, that we don't see the forest for the trees. I thought we might gain some perspective on additional ways to improve this article, by stepping back for a high-level view, and examining how we organize the top-level structure of the article by comparing the section structure hierarchy with how French Wikipedia does it with their article on fr-wiki.
To facilitate a comparison between the two, I've extracted the section headers from the French article into a sandbox and translated them. The mediawiki software does the rest, and creates a Table of Contents which exactly matches the Table of Contents of the French article, except for its being in English instead of French. I topped it off with a translation of the French lead, to give a sense of what fr-wiki considers to be a summary of the most important parts of their article.
So, this sandbox is basically a skeleton consisting of a translated lead, followed by a bunch of translated section headers and no body content. You can view the sandbox here. Three-way comparison convenience links:
I find that just looking at their Table of Contents/section structure, gives me ideas about what things we might be missing, or stressing too much, or not enough. Details at the sandbox. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 07:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the extra space before parenthesis in the second to last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the "Role of women" section. Before: > (which would drive them out of business ) After: > (which would drive them out of business) Sparrition ( talk) 12:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Crisis of the Ancien Regime>Financial crisis. First line reads; 'The French state faced a series of budgetary crisis', should read 'The French state faced a series of budgetary crises' 82.46.215.118 ( talk) 01:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
This article does not meet the fundamental criteria of a good quality page. It starts by quoting a work by James Livesy "Making Democracy in the French Revolution" which is probably one of the most controversial books on the subject, made by an English Historian with a limited capacity of reading French. Livesy is a professor of Global history, not an expert on the French revolution, and his works often are charged with superficiality and unclear referencing. What is more, the entire article does not dwell on the causes of the French Revolution, it offers personal commentaries on it. I reckon it is time to open a serious discussion about this article. There is also a very serious problem with the scholarship used, mostly in English, with the works of Francois Furet mostly quoted via third sources. -- 86.6.148.125 ( talk) 08:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The sentence "Inefficient agricultural methods meant domestic farmers could not support these numbers, while primitive transportation networks made it hard to maintain supplies even when there was sufficient." in the section Causes seems to end abruptly. It could say "...maintain supplies even when they were sufficient." or it could say "...maintain supplies even when there was sufficient food." Either change would sound better than it stands now, but I prefer the former. This is my first attempt to suggest an edit, and I'm only suggesting it for grammatical clarity, I don't think there's any factual change in this suggestion. Brianflenner ( talk) 04:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Its influence was great in the hundreds of small German states and elsewhere, where it[clarification needed] was either inspired by the French example or in reaction against it[199]" probably means: "Its influence was great in the hundreds of small German states and elsewhere, where other revolutions were either inspired by the French example or in reaction against it". 44gattiinfilax6 ( talk) 13:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Indian constitution and French revolution 2409:4043:2297:401F:0:0:14E8:F0B1 ( talk) 04:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Half way through the article we start mentioning a certain "Napoleon", and the activities of "Bonapartists", without ever saying who he was or explaining how he was significant to preceding and ongoing events. This needs rather more clarity. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
How was the principle of French Revolution adopted by National Assembly 2409:4066:100:CE2F:0:0:166C:D8A4 ( talk) 02:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Thermidorian Reaction and the link to the main article Thermidorian Reaction is misspelled as Thermidorean. This should be corrected. Kvmacy ( talk) 19:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no mention of Sonthonax and Polverel in the article, Sonthonax and Polverel who officially abolished slavery in Saint-Domingue. There is no mention of Toussaint Louverture, either. There is no mention of the Haitian people's struggle for independence. There is a very short article on “French colonial policy”, but what about Toussaint Louverture policy? What about French imperialism in Europe?
In the introduction, it is write: “while phrases like liberté, égalité, fraternité reappeared in other revolts, such as the 1917 Russian Revolution,[2] and inspired campaigns for the abolition of slavery and universal suffrage.”
Well, there was no campaign for the abolition of slavery during the revolution. Instead, there were military campaigns to maintain slavery in Saint-Domingue and to keep Saint-Domingue under French rule.
I wrote this in the introduction: “The revolutionaries, however, remained imperialists who maintained the system of slavery until it was dismantled in Saint-Domingue, following the slave revolt that began in August 1791. Not recognizing the right to independence, nor autonomy, to the peoples of the French empire, those who have become the Haitian people had to fight to overthrow French dominance over Saint-Domingue.”
This is true, and no historian says otherwise. But Robinvp11 deleted it, saying "Inserting this material into the Lede is useless".
I don't understand? Is telling the truth useless? Wordyhs ( talk) 13:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I propose to add "Intellectual" to the lists of factors triggering the revolution, in the phrase "Its causes are generally agreed to be a combination of social, political and economic factors", since, as shown by Fouret and others, the circle of thought and the French philosophers played a major role in shaping the revolution's development. 80.147.11.76 ( talk) 14:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sentence:
Women forced thekir way into the political sphere.
Has an obvious spelling error ("their") Enigmoid ( talk) 02:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add a sub-heading on colonial uprisings with a few sentences talking about the Haitian Revolution as a result of Enlightenment thought in the Revolution. I would also like to add a link from the French Revolution page to the Haitian Revolution in this area.
Dufrenchrev ( talk) 15:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
French Revolutionary Wars has been nominated by WP:TAFI. All contributions improving this article welcome! Cheers, walk victor falk talk 04:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is the relationship between these two revolutions really downplayed?
The Americans did not adopt any of the reforms of the French Revolution since few applied to the new republic.
Um, maybe that's because most of those reforms were already implemented in their revolution
It seems very obvious to me that the two Revolutions were really one and the same. I think there should be more reference to this.
CJK ( talk) 22:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It was an absolute Parliament as far as the American colonists were concerned--see the Declaratory Act. And to clarify, I'm not talking about how either revolution influenced the other, I am pointing out that their nature was fairly close.
CJK ( talk) 19:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It was an absolute Parliament as far as the American colonists were concernedis not good enough. There is no such thing as "an absolute Parliament". :) Right or wrong in Parliament -
A parliament is a legislature. More generally, "parliament" may simply refer to a democratic government's legislature.
The line "Historians have seldom praised the Directory; it was a government of self-interest rather than virtue, thus losing any claim on idealism." appears twice in the article. 50.171.25.90 ( talk) 03:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
In the "Reign of Terror" section, "exaggerate" is misspelled as "exhaggerate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfriar ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 May 2009
also, in the "financial costs" section, the page states that the french were in debt of "1,000 to 2,000 million livres" I beleive that it is supposed to say 1-2 billion livres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.175.115 ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 12 October 2011
In the "Role of Women" section the following sentence appears : "The women demanded equality for men and then moved on to a demand for the and of male domination." It should be "end of male domination." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.236.182 ( talk)
In the second paragraph of the introduction the following two sentences appear : "A republic was proclaimed in September 1792. In a momentous events with international condemnation, King Louis XVI was executed on 21 January 1793." The latter sentence should read : ' In a momentous event followed by international condemnation, King Louis XVI was executed on January 21, 1793. ' The sentence as it is has a misuse of a plural, and the condemnation (so-called) obviously would have followed the act, not attended it. 50.14.236.182 ( talk) 06:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second paragraph of the "Causes" section begins "By the 1790s the Marxist class interpretation had largely been abandoned among scholars." Please change this to "By the 1970s the Marxist class interpretation had largely been abandoned among scholars," as it seems likely the current sentence is a typo, since Marx wasn't alive in the 1790s, and of course there could be no Marxist scholars then. Thank you! 73.40.43.27 ( talk) 15:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Freemasonry isn't mentioned once in this article even though many impartial historians and Freemasons themselves acknowledge the important role they played in bringing about the Revolution. For example, in Martin's History of France: The decline of the French monarchy (1866) he writes (p. 481): [1]
And he goes on for several pages describing the Masonic background to the Revolution. This seems to be a very taboo subject for some reason.
CJK ( talk) 16:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that this page was missing the obligatory homage to Murray Rothbard. Since he's on every other political page, I figured I'd drop the key quote from that most important of Wikisages here: Murray Rothbard said of the French Revolution, "The result was enormous strides for freedom and the prosperity unleashed by the consequent Industrial Revolution." [1] There. Somebody should get that in the article stat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.247.77 ( talk) 05:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
"The Revolution profoundly altered the course of modern history, triggering the global decline of theocracies and absolute monarchies while replacing them with republics and democracies. Through the Revolutionary Wars, it unleashed a wave of global conflicts that extended from the Caribbean to the Middle East. Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history."
Um, no.
Democracy was already in practice in the United States and, in effect, in Great Britain. Both were greater inspirations to republics and democracies than the French Revolution, which quickly devolved into a terrorist state and in short order resulted in a dictatorship and then a restoration of monarchy. France didn't become a republic for almost another hundred years. 47.20.162.46 ( talk) 23:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)captcrisis
Could somebody work the guillotine into the lead? I'm surprised this most iconic of Revolutionary items doesn't even find a mention here.— indopug ( talk) 02:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Should we change Infobox Historical Event to Infobox Civil Conflict? Just an brainstormed idea. 173.180.3.128 ( talk) 15:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I feel this article vastly understates the importance of the American Revolution on France, it isn't even mentioned here in spite of the fact that numerous French authors admit it had a significant influence. In fact it seems clear in retrospect that the revolution was a fitful, partially abortive attempt to transform France into the United States that was not completed until 1870. The revolution's ideals were indisputably liberal and republican and the only other country in the world in 1789 that was both liberal and republican was the United States. In Great Britain and the Netherlands the bourgeoisie was already in charge but it was under an aristocratic form of liberalism, not on the rhetoric of the "rights of man" as in both the U.S. and France. CJK ( talk) 21:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
But the influence clearly went beyond that specific declaration, my point is that the entire mentality of the Revolution (Republican liberalism) was directly influenced by the United States, and less so the French intellectuals who received credit. This is documented in Francois Aulard's book. Few French intellectuals actually advocated republican liberalism. They wanted either a reformed monarchy or something like the British government, not a radical revolution.
CJK ( talk) 00:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The lead states that the Balls trigger[ed] the global decline of theocracies and absolute monarchies while replacing them with republics and democracies. Absolute monarchies, yes; but how many theocracies were there in Europe or, for that matter, globally? (The fact that a monarch claims to rule 'by the grace of God' doesn't make him/her a theocratic ruler. I think that the reference to theocracies should be removed. Norvo ( talk) 23:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I don't know how the lewrockwell link came to appear under this! Norvo ( talk) 23:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@ UberCryxic: - Not to be too judgmental or anything, but the language you're insisting on is a pretty clear example of weaselly, un-encyclopedic narrative. It's opinion, not fact, and doesn't really provide the reader with any real information. Just because two historians, who happen to like the French Revolution, have said that the French Revolution is "widely regarded as the most important", doesn't mean we should put that into the article. Poor editorial discretion. NickCT ( talk) 15:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I want to make another point tangentially related to the sentence above. You're deleting some comments about the Marxist interpretations of the Revolution, claiming things like "assertions not supported by the sources." Soboul was the foremost Marxist historian of the Revolution in the 20th century. I am staring at La Revolution Francaise as I'm writing these words; he makes very clear where his interpretation (and others like him) comes from. So again, unless you have contradictory evidence that the Marxist interpretation was not important, what are you even doing? UBER (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
NickCT, I disagree with this edit [2] because historiographical information about the French Revolution is of great interest to readers, and Soboul is a major historian on this subject.
I agree that "most historians consider the French Revolution one of the most important events of human history," but NickCT is right that ideally, this should be sourced, considering WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE. - Darouet ( talk) 23:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
French Revolution. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It was not against the specific Christian traditions. It was not about the Catholic saints or deep religious beliefs. Rmtrevino ( talk) 14:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The French Revolution did result in decriminalisation of same-sex relationships. It resulted in the decriminalisation of male homosexual behaviour -- which is not the same thing.
A same-sex relationship might be between two men or between two women. Female homosexuality was never illegal in France; only *male* homosexual behaviour was criminalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.218.153 ( talk) 16:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
In the short piece about the impact on Ireland (under United Kingdom) - it should be added that the Revolution-inspired Wolfe Tone is considered the father of Irish republicanism and his movement inspired repeated attempts at rebellion and revolution which eventually ended in the partition of Ireland and independence for the southern 26 counties. All current non-Unionist Irish parties trace their ancestry back to Wolfe Tone's ideals. - 80.111.159.148 ( talk) 01:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Knowing little about the French revolution, my initial impression (which I imagine is a common one) was that the French king was an absolute monarch. But as I read this article I see that his attempts at tax reform were stymied at every turn by a legislative body that I had never even heard of. It would be good if the article could expand on this a little, because the existing context and explanation of this state of affairs is, I would argue, inadequate. Sylvain1972 ( talk) 18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on French Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on French Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Newberry French Revolution Collection Pamphlets The Newberry Library's French Revolution Collection consists of more than 30,000 pamphlets and more than 23,000 issues of 180 periodicals published between 1780 and 1810. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.229.8 ( talk) 12:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
A minor point, but surely the nobility was ENsured an adequate food supply, not INsured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.128.130 ( talk) 08:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
On the Wikipedia page entitled French Revolution under the section Storming the Bastille, it is stated that "...cries of Vive la Nation "Long live the Nation" changed to Vive le Roi "Long live the King".
However on the page entitled Storming of the Bastille under the section Aftermath it is stated that "...cries of "Long live the King" were changed to "Long live the Nation"."
These pages are referring to the same date and event.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasfd ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 June 2009
The Revolution overthrew the monarchy, established a *republic, catalyzed violent periods of political turmoil, and finally culminated in a dictatorship under Napoleon who brought many of its principles to areas he conquered in Western Europe and beyond.
Republic- a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. Women are people therefore this is not a republic by today's definition, it was not considered a republic by the women of that generation and likewise this was not democracy.
The French Republic did not allow 50 percent of its population to access any of that power. It is a common misconception or just misogynistic to think that the French Revolution resulted in true democracy - French women were not allowed the vote until 1946, long after Turkey.
2) Historians who do not consider the French Revolution as important would not mention it, so how do you grade this? Out of how many 'important' events? Who is on this panel of historians? Very subjective statement, France came long after Greece....and the Revolution was a half-attempt at the progress of human history. Western historians do not know the history of MOST OTHER human populations to any similar degree so I wonder how this statement came about, if it wasn't pure arrogance.
[??] Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history.[2][3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88octopus88 ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
there is a phrase in para 4 under Causes - the upper class was always insured a stable living - it would be better expressed as “the upper class was always assured a stable living” Robynpjenkins ( talk) 04:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Section 9.4 (Long Term Impact - United States) refers to the incumbent Jefferson administration of the United States in 1793 as "Republican", which is incorrect; the government was "Democratic-Republican", distinct from the Republican Party of Lincoln and of today, and more closely related to the Democratic party of Jackson and today. This should be changed to read "Democratic-Republican" or, if preferred, "Democratic" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.245.130.33 ( talk) 18:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I added an NPOV, because this article takes the freedom, without an appropriate back up of secondary sources, to express value judgment on the French revolution, which to all historians remains a deeply contentious issue. Hannah Arendt, of course, comes to mind (which the article does not even quote and seems not to be aware of) but hundreds more could be added. The Geopolitical order of Europe is not the result of the French Revolution, but the reaction to it, the Congress of Vienna. I express here my firm belief that the NPOV shall stay in place until serious, non-ideological scholarship, is used to back up what are otherwise rather vague and contentious claims.
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the sentence beginning "Habermas argued that...", "17th century" should be hyphenated, per MOS:CENTURY. 82.98.7.185 ( talk) 04:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The fifth paragraph begins :
After the Thermidorian Reaction, an executive council ...
I think it should be
After the Jacobins and Robespierre were overthrown in the Thermidorian Reaction, an executive council ...
Bruce Bodner bebgsurg@tmlp.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebgsurg ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
It currently reads "Overall, the Revolution did not greatly change the French business system, and probably helped freeze in place the horizons of the small business owner." The source referenced is not something I can view online so no idea how to fix this. "Probably" doesn't seem very encyclopedic. I looked up "horizons" and found it can mean "range of perception or experience" or "something that might be attained". Never saw it used in this way before. Also claiming it didn't greatly change the business system in the same section that list massive changes in said business system, seems contradictory. Dream Focus 13:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Information to be added or removed: Citation needed to the phrase "In an attempt to keep control of the process and prevent the Assembly from convening, Louis XVI ordered the closure of the Salle des États where the Assembly met, making an excuse...". Or alternative wording to avoid misinterpretation. To the effect of "In order to urgently confront the estates on a list of proposals for reform Louis XVI called for a grand séance royale, which would require the closure of the Salle des États, where the Assembly met, for a short period of time so..." Explanation of issue: Citation needed. I can find little evidence to support the argument that Louis XVI was actively trying to prevent the assembly from meeting.
References supporting change: Schama 'Citizens' 2004 Pg 358 Stewartmiller2001 ( talk) 11:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change ((Reunion)) to ((Réunion))
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Proudhon was an anarchist not a socialist 81.6.250.253 ( talk) 09:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I would like to develop a paragraph on Jacobinism on the following basis:
Jacobinism is an ideology developed and implemented during the French Revolution of 1789. In the words of F. Furet, in Penser la révolution française (quoted by Hoel in Introduction au Jacobinisme..., "Jacobinism is both an ideology and a power: a system of representations and a system of action." ("le jacobinisme est à la fois une idéologie et un pouvoir : un système de représentations et un système d’action" ) This ideology presents, according to Hoel, in L'idéologie jacobine, the following 6 characteristics: 1. Omnipotence of the State (« Omnipotence de l’État »); 2. Despotism of Paris (« Despotisme de Paris »); 3. Colonialism (« Colonialisme »); 4. Cultural genocide (« Génocide culturel »); 5. Rejection of the Social Contract (Rousseau) and federalism (Rejet du Contrat social (Rousseau) et du fédéralisme); 6. Hypocrisy, lies, double speeches (Hypocrisie, mensonge, double discours). -- Wordyhs ( talk) 20:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
This page used to explain the influence that the American Revolution had on the French people and how it stimulated the French Revolution. Now, the page has no mention whatsoever of the impact of the American Revolution on the French. Nor does it explain the ideals that the French derived from the Americans or the shared-values which led France to largely support the American Revolution. The United States was the first modern Western democracy, and the American Revolution began nearly thirty years before the French Revolution began.
This page also claims that the French Revolution began a 'global transition towards democracy'. That transition was started by the American Revolution, not the French Revolution. Furthermore, the French Revolution was only directly influential in Europe. It had no direct global influence. 021120x ( talk) 21:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
This is not a neutral article. 021120x ( talk) 21:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The introduction mentions that the Catholic Church was "de-established" during the Revolution. The correct technical term is "disestablish" and the word should therefore be "disestablished". 78.144.205.77 ( talk) 15:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ctrl+F for "September massacres" and "september massacre"
add link for these to /info/en/?search=September_Massacres 100.42.20.206 ( talk) 11:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The introduction states: "The French Revolution differed from other revolutions in being intended to benefit all humanity, rather than just the nation". However, later in the Long-term impact section it is quoted that the "French Revolution gave a great stimulus to the growth of modern nationalism".
While these are not mutually exclusive, I think the article might be deserving of some explanation of this. For instance, was this goal of the French Revolution clearly subverted by some members (Napoleon?)? Or was the initial goal more complicated than just "humanity > nation-states".
Irving David Rein ( talk) 22:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Citation needed to the phrase: "Despite succeeding in gaining independence for the 500000 thousand Colonies, France was severely indebted by the American Revolutionary War."
My suggestion is to add this link: https://www.worldbyisa.com/15-historical-places-related-to-the-french-revolution/ exactly this information in the 'French Revolution causes'section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldbyisa ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Napoleon fundamentally does not represent the ideas of the French revolution. Quite the contrary. It was therefor a weakness of the revolution period to end in Napoleon. However the article does not make tha clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.235.125.68 ( talk) 08:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I question the accuracy of the Aulard quotation in section #Long term impact. It doesn't seem to closely match the Aulard sources (French or English) that I found. I can't find the "as quoted in" source (Tilley, 1922), but both Aulard's French original (1901) [2] (also in French Wikisource), and an English translation (1910) [3] are available in full-text versions online. The ref gives: Aulard in Arthur Tilley, ed. (1922) p. 115. Searching Aulard's original, the closest thing I could find is from Chapter 2. Unless I'm looking at the wrong page entirely in the Aulard original and translation, but I don't see a source in the #Sources or #Bibliography sections for Tilley, so I can't compare it; if anyone knows what that is, please share. Mathglot ( talk) 04:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
References
C'est qu'une première révolution économique et sociale s'était opérée ou allait s'opérer par la destruction de la propriété féodale, par l'abolition du droit d'aînesse, par la vente des biens nationaux, par une moins injuste constitution et répartition de la propriété. L'ensemble des Français furent satisfaits de cette révolution, et ne virent pas au delà, parce que les plus criantes de leurs souffrances venaient d'être calmées
Such an idea scarcely occurred, at first, to anyone. A first revolution, social and economic, had taken place, or was about to do so, through the destruction of the feudal system, the abolition of the right of primogeniture, the sale of the national properties, and a less unjust constitution and partition of property. The generality of Frenchmen were satisfied with this revolution, and saw no farther; the most crying injustice, their more serious complaints, having been just righted.
So, as a complete newcomer to the page I am having trouble determining the source of all this contention. Is it this paragraph?
I find this generally inoffensive, but have in the past found that some people have other historical paradigms than I do. Is the question whether there is any relationship between the American and the French revolutions?
By the way, the lead is unquestionably too impenetrable and long. I spent several centuries on the French Revolution in high school ;) not that I claim any of that a reliable source, mind you, but I found the lede hard to follow, and I've been taken through all that many times already. LMK Elinruby ( talk) 09:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
A couple of questions:
Neither lede mentions two events that I myself think of as seminal:
I am not advocating that we add them, at least not yet, especially since the current english lede contradicts #2, but that if you asked me today to sit down and write about the French Revolution, those would a least be in the first draft. I was in fact taught that Lafayette was important, but I kind of agree that he was a major figure in the American revolution, and more minor in the French. But note that the French narrative of the French is much more complex than the American one, with many players. That's just my thoughts coming in. I realize that there seems to be a long history to this argument??, but maybe restating the actual point of discussion would be helpful to more than just me. And no, I haven't read all three articles, I freely admit it, and will go work on that some more now. But I have read all both ledes, and they are definitely different. Elinruby ( talk) 10:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Just noting some repeated changes, in case somebody wants to object. I do not intend to die on any hill for these, but believe they are good changes. I normally wouldn't take them to the talk page, but since there is currently strife...Nor is this intended as some sort of scolding, just notification that I am now also making changes based on these style conventions, though only when there are a lot of the together, or I am editing anyway for ambiguity or awkwardness.
Lede says:
and also, above that:
Body says: "On 9 November 1799, the Coup of 18 Brumaire replaced the five Directors with the French Consulate, Bonaparte, Sieyès, and Roger Ducos; most historians consider this the end point of the French Revolution" French Revolution#The Directory; 1795–1799
Also, in lede:
In body: "On 17th, the Law of Suspects ordered the arrest of suspected "enemies of freedom", initiating what became known as the "Terror"." French Revolution#First Republic 1792–1795##Terror
This is a separate issue from the current RfC, of course, but should be addressed. Elinruby ( talk) 08:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
"Juring" offends my eyes. Is this based on sources? Surely not? I suggest " jureur (oath-taker)". °btw, I have made several minor style changes, mostly concerned with a complete name for people on first reference, which I assume is not controversial, and flagged a couple of ambiguities for later attention by myself or someone else. Elinruby ( talk) 12:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
That's what I was wondering, whether it was bad translation or just that old a word. Thanks. I'll try to find a reference for the usage and put it where it is introduced. Or if you have one handy, that would be helpful. Elinruby ( talk) 23:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I believe it was originally "juring" i objected to, because it looked like an English gerund built onto a French verb. The last time I looked, and I don't care about this enough to double-check, I think it was "non-juring". Perhaps it always was, or perhaps someone changed it. In any event, this renders moot the "opposite meaning" problem I was talking about. I still don't like the usage but I'm considering whether it is correct, and simply very old. My current thought is that either way it is obscure and jarring, and meaningless to me, an editor with an extensive vocabulary in several dialects of of these languages. "Juror" is better than "juring" in this respect since it is at least definitely English, but likely to confuse non-expert readers as it is now strongly associated with judicial settings. If there is an authority for using in *in this historical context*, not one a century earlier in another country, I suppose it's fine, but even if it is technically correct it's still an archaic and possibly anachronistic usage that impedes the readability of the text, whereas good Saxon alternatives exist. This is my point. I have not changed the text, but that is what I think of the wording. I suggest that this is much less important an issue than the length of the text... Elinruby ( talk) 03:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
We sometimes get so bogged down in minutiae, that we don't see the forest for the trees. I thought we might gain some perspective on additional ways to improve this article, by stepping back for a high-level view, and examining how we organize the top-level structure of the article by comparing the section structure hierarchy with how French Wikipedia does it with their article on fr-wiki.
To facilitate a comparison between the two, I've extracted the section headers from the French article into a sandbox and translated them. The mediawiki software does the rest, and creates a Table of Contents which exactly matches the Table of Contents of the French article, except for its being in English instead of French. I topped it off with a translation of the French lead, to give a sense of what fr-wiki considers to be a summary of the most important parts of their article.
So, this sandbox is basically a skeleton consisting of a translated lead, followed by a bunch of translated section headers and no body content. You can view the sandbox here. Three-way comparison convenience links:
I find that just looking at their Table of Contents/section structure, gives me ideas about what things we might be missing, or stressing too much, or not enough. Details at the sandbox. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 07:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the extra space before parenthesis in the second to last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the "Role of women" section. Before: > (which would drive them out of business ) After: > (which would drive them out of business) Sparrition ( talk) 12:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Crisis of the Ancien Regime>Financial crisis. First line reads; 'The French state faced a series of budgetary crisis', should read 'The French state faced a series of budgetary crises' 82.46.215.118 ( talk) 01:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
This article does not meet the fundamental criteria of a good quality page. It starts by quoting a work by James Livesy "Making Democracy in the French Revolution" which is probably one of the most controversial books on the subject, made by an English Historian with a limited capacity of reading French. Livesy is a professor of Global history, not an expert on the French revolution, and his works often are charged with superficiality and unclear referencing. What is more, the entire article does not dwell on the causes of the French Revolution, it offers personal commentaries on it. I reckon it is time to open a serious discussion about this article. There is also a very serious problem with the scholarship used, mostly in English, with the works of Francois Furet mostly quoted via third sources. -- 86.6.148.125 ( talk) 08:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The sentence "Inefficient agricultural methods meant domestic farmers could not support these numbers, while primitive transportation networks made it hard to maintain supplies even when there was sufficient." in the section Causes seems to end abruptly. It could say "...maintain supplies even when they were sufficient." or it could say "...maintain supplies even when there was sufficient food." Either change would sound better than it stands now, but I prefer the former. This is my first attempt to suggest an edit, and I'm only suggesting it for grammatical clarity, I don't think there's any factual change in this suggestion. Brianflenner ( talk) 04:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Its influence was great in the hundreds of small German states and elsewhere, where it[clarification needed] was either inspired by the French example or in reaction against it[199]" probably means: "Its influence was great in the hundreds of small German states and elsewhere, where other revolutions were either inspired by the French example or in reaction against it". 44gattiinfilax6 ( talk) 13:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Indian constitution and French revolution 2409:4043:2297:401F:0:0:14E8:F0B1 ( talk) 04:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Half way through the article we start mentioning a certain "Napoleon", and the activities of "Bonapartists", without ever saying who he was or explaining how he was significant to preceding and ongoing events. This needs rather more clarity. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
How was the principle of French Revolution adopted by National Assembly 2409:4066:100:CE2F:0:0:166C:D8A4 ( talk) 02:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Thermidorian Reaction and the link to the main article Thermidorian Reaction is misspelled as Thermidorean. This should be corrected. Kvmacy ( talk) 19:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no mention of Sonthonax and Polverel in the article, Sonthonax and Polverel who officially abolished slavery in Saint-Domingue. There is no mention of Toussaint Louverture, either. There is no mention of the Haitian people's struggle for independence. There is a very short article on “French colonial policy”, but what about Toussaint Louverture policy? What about French imperialism in Europe?
In the introduction, it is write: “while phrases like liberté, égalité, fraternité reappeared in other revolts, such as the 1917 Russian Revolution,[2] and inspired campaigns for the abolition of slavery and universal suffrage.”
Well, there was no campaign for the abolition of slavery during the revolution. Instead, there were military campaigns to maintain slavery in Saint-Domingue and to keep Saint-Domingue under French rule.
I wrote this in the introduction: “The revolutionaries, however, remained imperialists who maintained the system of slavery until it was dismantled in Saint-Domingue, following the slave revolt that began in August 1791. Not recognizing the right to independence, nor autonomy, to the peoples of the French empire, those who have become the Haitian people had to fight to overthrow French dominance over Saint-Domingue.”
This is true, and no historian says otherwise. But Robinvp11 deleted it, saying "Inserting this material into the Lede is useless".
I don't understand? Is telling the truth useless? Wordyhs ( talk) 13:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I propose to add "Intellectual" to the lists of factors triggering the revolution, in the phrase "Its causes are generally agreed to be a combination of social, political and economic factors", since, as shown by Fouret and others, the circle of thought and the French philosophers played a major role in shaping the revolution's development. 80.147.11.76 ( talk) 14:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)