Question: What should we do with the paragraph that says that the American revolution was an inspiration to the French Revolution, currently in the lede?
Good evening all,
I have come across a paragraph discussing the American revolution as a precursor or inspiration to the French Revolution. At first the suspect paragraph was in the lede, which I have now moved to the causes sections, as it seems more appropriate.
In doing so, I reviewed the sources involved for this paragraph, and found them to be lacking. In particular, these two claims are using rather unconvincing, and I'm uncertain of their veracity. Acebulf ( talk) 15:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
From the original letter send by Lafayette to Washington, with which the key was bundled, that this was a gesture of goodwill towards Washington, which Lafayette considered a mentor.
Give me leave, My dear General, to present you With a picture of the Bastille just as it looked a few days after I Had ordered its demolition, with the Main Kea of that fortress of despotism—it is a tribute Which I owe as A Son to My Adoptive father, as an aid de Camp to My General, as a Missionary of liberty to its patriarch.
I believe the conclusion of that phrase (highlighted in italic) might be open to interpretation that supports the view of Claim 1. However, the citation currently in the article mentions this in passing, and seems to be more an opinion of the historian than an accepted view amongst historians. With additional sourcing, this might be acceptable, but as-is, it is unsupported.
This is certainly not a claim accepted by historians. The cited source reads more like an op-ed than an actual article. Regardless, if we are to include a statement that has that strong of a claim, then we would need at least some kind of scholarly source, and even then, it should probably be phrased like: "Historian John Johnson states that "the Americans' successful rebellion over the British may have been a strong causal factor in starting the French Revolution".
As it currently stands, those two claims should probably be removed. It is entirely possible that better sourcing exists, but I have not been able to find it.
With this, I open the floor for discussions as to what we should do with these statements.
Cheers, Acebulf ( talk) 15:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I've added the RfC to "politics, government, and the law". Perhaps User:Yapperbot might recruit more interested parties that way, or if not, then at least it'd attract people from being on another, somewhat related RfC list. ( Summoned by bot) I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 17:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
One thing I can just mention is that I'm pretty sure that Schama, Simon. Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution. does support the position that, as I believe he states, "The French Revolution started in America". I have it on order from my library, and perhaps can confirm soon. Don't know if that is helpful at all. Let me know if I have put my oar in where it does not belong. Truth Is King 24 ( talk) 00:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
What Schama says (pages 64-67) is the fiscal and legislative weaknesses of the Ancien Regime were further exposed by the enormous debt incurred by the French state in fighting the American War, and their inability to finance the debt was among the causes of the Revolution. Which isn't the same as saying one necessarily led to the other. Robinvp11 ( talk) 19:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a huge difference between 'influenced' and 'inspired'; yes, events don't occur in a vacuum, but that implies a two way exchange of ideas. Many of the signers of the Declaration were secular rationalists - I will admit I've only glanced at the article on the American War, but despite the huge acres of space devoted to almost every other topic, neither that or those on individuals like Franklin even mention the debt owed to Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Rousseau.
Since Jefferson wrote both Declarations, its not surprising they resembled each other; Lafayette (who presented it to the Assembly) was out of power by 1790 and lucky to escape with his life. So its misleading to use that as an example of 'inspiration'. The two events were very very different in both causes and outcomes; when Americans today complain about 'deadlock in Washington', they miss the point. The framers of the Constitution assumed they'd reached perfection; the system of checks and balances was designed to prevent change. Modern historians argue as to whether 'Revolution' is even the right word for what happened in the US; that's why Wolfe Tone and other leaders of the 1798 Irish Rebellion specifically referenced the French example, not the American.
So two points; (a) 'Inspired' is the wrong word, because it implies assumptions on the causes and impact of the French Revolution that simply aren't correct; (b) if you want to include the flow of ideas (which I'd support), then there's work to be done on numerous articles (staring with the ARW), not only here. Robinvp11 ( talk) 14:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Modern historians argue as to whether 'Revolution' is even the right word for what happened in the US; that's why Wolfe Tone and other leaders of the 1798 Irish Rebellion specifically referenced the French example, not the American
If we measure radicalism by the amount of change that took place – by transformations in the relationships that bound people to each other – then the American Revolution was not conservative at all; on the contrary: it was as radical and revolutionary as any in history. [4]
The political ideas of the Enlightenment – Locke’s natural rights, Rousseau’s popular sovereignty, Montesquieu’s separation of powers – had once been political abstractions, little more than ideas in books. But the birth of the United States showed that these ideas could serve as a blueprint for modern government. [5]
most important of these contacts were thus books and newspapers and the interpretations and ideas they inspired
Nevertheless, French financial problems and the American and Dutch revolutions inspired the French to think of radical reforms and to justify popular sovereignty
As for Lafayette, since 1783 he had displayed a copy of the Declaration of Independence in the entry hall of his house next to an empty frame "waiting for the declaration of the Rights of France." This declaration would later inspire Lafayette's draft.
Americans believed that the French Revolution of 1789, a decade or so later, was a direct consequence of their revolution. And Lafayette thought so too, which is why he sent the key to the Bastille, the symbol of the Ancien Régime, to George Washington, where it hangs today in Mount Vernon. [6]
References
Some early proponents of the French Revolution were influenced by the American Revolution; though this quickly diminished over time.
These contacts, which increased after the American War of Independence, could be interpreted as causes of the French Revolution. Although they did not directly give rise to the Revolution, we might understand them as second or third rank issues or as indirect challenges to the Old Regime.
From a global perspective, the American and French Revolutions together kickstarted an " Age of Revolution" which spread across the Atlantic.
I think this is the direction we should be going in. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 03:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
As in the 18th century, the American war of independence sounded the tocsin [alarm] for the European middle class, so that in the 19th century, the American Civil War sounded it for the European working class. [1]
The American people, who set the world an example in waging a revolutionary war against feudal slavery, now find themselves in the latest, capitalist stage of wage-slavery to a handful of multimillionaires. [2]
The American Revolution, which in its own time was the model of a revolutionary war, exerted an influence on the struggle of the European bourgeoisie against feudal absolutist regimes. Approximately 7,000 European volunteers fought in the ranks of the American army, including the Frenchmen the Marquis de Lafayette and H. Saint-Simon and the Pole T. Kosciuszko. During the Great French Revolution the insurgents made use of the organizational experience and revolutionary military tactics of the Americans. The victory of the North Americans in the American Revolution promoted the development of the liberation movement of the peoples of Latin America against Spanish domination. The revolution was hailed by the progressive people of many countries, including Russia, where A. N. Radishchev celebrated it in the ode “Liberty.” [3]
Marx, Lenin, and other Soviet scholars cannot in any way, shape, or form be construed as "conservative reactionaries". 021120x ( talk) 17:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
References
I removed the second paragraph of the lead, which made fringe claims for the influence of Americans on the French Revolution. If present at all, this should be way down in the body somewhere. This is a highly Americano-centric claim, and by no stretch of the imagination belongs in the lead, nor probably in the body, either. The French Revolution is one of the most studied events in European, even World history, and every corner of it has been examined, in every generation, from every possible angle. If there were genuine, important influences by Americans, then there would be a whole corner of scholarship with multiple books with titles like, "American Influences on the French Revolution". But how many such books are there? Zero. If it were a very minor, but real, influence, then there would be books with entire chapters by that name. I'm not sure how many there are, but in a spot check of general histories of the French Revolution, I found none. I'd guess that less than one in twenty such histories contain such a chapter; maybe less than one in fifty. This makes this a "tiny minority" of views, and per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, it's questionable whether this content should appear in the article at all. Having it in the lead is WP:CHERRYPICKING and highly undue. I've removed it. Mathglot ( talk) 18:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Passing comment. There are just too many accusations of bias, cherry-picking, fringe views, etc coming from both sides of the fence for me to further participate other than to make this statement: The French Revolution almost immediately followed the American Revolution. It would be a bit presumptuous to say the American Revolution was the major inspirational force behind the French Revolution. It would be equally presumptuous to say that it had no, or negligible, influence. Certainly the French had their own reasons for their revolution, and certainly they didn't exist in a box and never looked to the world around them for precedence or help, as did the Americans during their revolution. I've seen enough references to sources that indeed indicate that there is validity to both views, and that they can even overlap. It would be best to say, in effect, some sources say 'this', some sources say 'that' and let the readers decide what is "fringe", "bias", etc. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The French Revolution almost immediately followed the American Revolution. It would be a bit presumptuous to say the American Revolution was the major inspirational force behind the French Revolution. It would be equally presumptuous to say that it had no, or negligible, influence.
If there are enough sources that express both views this can't be ignored..
— Upon review, no one wants the lede to say that the American Revolution was the "only" or the "major" cause of the French Revolution, so let's not create a straw man on behalf of other editors. You're saying that you support NPOV but at the same time you oppose representing both views with the claim that the majority of historians have only a one-sided view, that the American Revolution, had little to no influence. That you oppose this idea -- "If there are enough sources that express both views this can't be ignored" -- only serves to demonstrate that you seem to harbor a bias of your own, which was also revealed with your "Americano" accusation.
— Where have you substantiated that most historians believe that the American Revolution had little to no impact on the French Revolution? You presented a google list of sources with the claim that that none of them support the idea that the American revolution had little to no impact on the French Revolution, but take a real look at some of the books listed there. Thomas Paine and the French Revolution. Here's another list you might want to avoid
consider.
— Was it also a coincidence that Thomas Jefferson was the one chosen to author the French Declaration of Independence? Sorry, but there are too many sources out there for any one editor around here to be making sweeping one-sided claims such as the ones you're making. Meanwhile you shouldn't be making controversial deletions in the lede in the middle of a debate. That too, also demonstrates an acute bias on your part. Sorry about the curt tone, but you seem to have no intention in reaching a balanced compromise that reflects 'any' influence the American Revolution had on the French Revolution, regardless of the sources support that premise, and regardless of the connections between the two revolutions. --
Gwillhickers (
talk) 23:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
It would be best to say, in effect, some sources say 'this', some sources say 'that' and let the readers decide what is "fringe", "bias", etc.
(1) Before anyone comments further, can I suggest reading what the Lead actually says, then arguing about what it should say.
(2) It is stated above this is simply about "the French drew inspiration and influence from the Americans, which is indisputable, and warrants inclusion." If that is so, I invite everyone to look at the version I produced on 13 September, amended following input on 8 October; see if you can figure out why it was felt necessary to raise first an ANI, then a DRN. Given the speed with which they were resolved, I'm not the only one.
(3) That's not to say I don't have a good idea. You cannot 'bluff' on Wikipedia; everything you write (even amended) can be viewed by anyone. If you claim your wording comes from another editor, and is the result of 'editorial consensus', its easy to check. If you accuse others of lacking neutrality, you better make sure your personal TP isn't littered with interactions proving the opposite, and your personal edit history doesn't contain multiple references to 'British nationalist bias' or Europeans in general lacking insight on American affairs. As a Brit who lived in the US for 12 years and whose kids still do, I'll leave you to imagine how ironic it is to hear that claim.
(4) The good thing about Wikipedia is its full of intelligent people, with different perspectives, from whom you can learn. If you want; I found the article by Annie Jourdan really interesting, and I've learned something. If all you've taken away is to confirm how right you were all along, then hurrah for you I guess, but what a sterile world that must be.
(5) The bad thing about Wikipedia is its full of intelligent people; you might be the intellectual giant of Podunkville, LA, or Greater Dribble, Nowhereshire, able to stun others into submission by your ability to seamlessly switch between 'influence', 'inspire' and 'catalyse'. In the world of Wikipedia, people know what 'ad hominem' means, and if you supply references, there's a good chance someone else will read it rather than just being awed by your ability to dig it out.
(6) On a positive note, I've taken a look at the article in general and its a mess - multiple repetition of the same detail, confusing timelines etc. I'm doing some work on it, (constructive) suggestions welcome. Robinvp11 ( talk) 15:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, we don't count up the sources on both sides of the fence to make a determination as to the weight of an issue.
Mathglot, there is nothing in WP:DUE that indicates the idea that if you have a measure of sources higher than opposing sources that this automatically renders the opposing view as fringe or highly unlikely. A fringe theory or view is only deemed as such when there are little to no sources to support that view. You have yet to even come close to proving any such claim. There are enough well sourced facts that support the idea that the American Revolution had a fair measure of influence on the impetus to bring the French Revolution about. Thomas Jefferson wrote the French Declaration of independence. Benjamin Franklin, US Minister to France, a political philosopher and his close friend comte de Mirabeau, a French revolutionary writer, constantly shared their ideas of revolution. Lafayette, when he returned to France after the American Revolutionary War, fully supported the prospect of democracy and a French revolution, and along with Jefferson, worked with Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès when they drafted the French Declaration of the Rights of Man -- and there are plenty of sources that cover these things. This is not a contest about who has the largest stack of books, and again, you have yet to prove you have. In such cases we look to the established facts to see if they are supported by the sources. You need to put your unsupported math claim aside and start considering the actual history involved. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
As the French Revolution is widely covered, there is no benefit to the discussion in listing what individual authors have to say. In an attempt to break this logjam, what we need, is some solid data about what the majority/minority/tiny minority views are, in order to make any progress. Bearing in mind that per WP:BURDEN the task of proving sufficient support for the American-influence theory lies squarely on those who wish to include it, so, in that sense, those *not* wishing to include it don't need to prove anything at all (contrary to some oft-repeated, non policy-based insistence above that they do), I think that this is nevertheless not an intractable problem, so I'll go ahead and give it a shot.
Both Acebulf and User:Thucydides411 are on the right track here, imho, as the only way to establish the proper treatment of American influence in the article. As Acebulf said, "unless we have reliable commentary on what historians actually believe then guidelines would favor it being left out entirely, and Thucydides411 offered another approach, mentioning that that French article doesn't mention it at all, other than regarding the war debt.
So, I'd like to propose an approach that might shed some light on the question of what the majority/minority views are; namely, the use of tertiary sources. Because the French Revolution is one of the most studied topics in history, it is more difficult to assess the numbers, and thus the weight they represent, by going straight to the secondary sources; it's an embarrassment of riches, and a lot to wade through. (There are ways, however; more on that later, if this approach is inconclusive.) Tertiary sources are "publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources." Besides encyclopedias, that could include good college textbook introductions, historical dictionaries, and similar sources. Encyclopedias are the classic tertiary source. Historiographical reviews or survey articles that look at the treatment of the aggreagate of historians on the topic, would be another tertiary source. A good tertiary source should give us some idea of the general view of historians on this topic, both based on what they say about American influence, and also by what they don't say. If we have a dozen reliable tertiary sources, the "average" will give us an excellent view of the views of serious historians on this topic.
I hope you will help out, by adding items to the "Survey" section below. If you are willing to participate in this approach, and in order to keep things on track, and comprehensible, I'd like to propose a methodology to go along with it. The goal here is to select and summarize one encyclopedia article on the topic, and add your report to the bullet list. So please select one tertiary source, read it through, and make a brief synopsis of it, including some statistics on whether they talk about American influence, and to what extent. I'll include two subsection headers below: "Survey" and "Discussion". It's not by accident that this parallels an oft-used Rfc approach, but this is not an Rfc. (If this approach goes nowhere, we might need an Rfc, later.) In the "Survey" section, please add a bullet item containing the name of your encyclopedia (or other tertiary source), a
citation for it, and then not more than a couples of sentences about what you found. Ideally, your survey summary should betray no clue where you stand on this issue; just a dispassionate assessment of what this one source says about it. Please don't "reply" or add other commentary following someone else's tertiary bullet synopsis; let's keep the "Survey" section lean and mean, and use the "Discussion" section for commentary. Also use the "Discussion" section, if you feel that a sentence or two just isn't enough to fully describe what your source says about this. (Or, use a long |quote=
param in the {{
citation}}.) The goal is to have a lean "Survey" section that has a good number of tertiary sources, each in one bullet item, which is brief, and no discussion there, so you can run down the whole bullet list rapidly and compare. Longer comments and responses to other users should go in the "Discussion" section.
I'm not opposed to changing the methodology if someone has a way to improve it, but can we at least get started with it this way? This Talk page has been going around in circles with no real progress in finding consensus, afaict, and I think this may get us somewhere. I'll start, with one bullet item for the "Columbia Encyclopedia". Please add more! After we have a bunch of them (I'm hoping for a dozen) we can step back, and see where we are with this. Please see guideline at WP:TERTIARY for what sources are applicable here. Ready, steady, Go! Mathglot ( talk) 00:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Here's a model tertiary source synopsis bullet item you can copy-paste and use if you want.
|
---|
Copy this: To generate this:
|
Will go back for entry on French Revolution. 021120x ( talk) 19:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Within the constraints of WP:TERTIARY, please choose your sources as randomly as possible. Any reputable encyclopedia should be fine. I used the Columbia, because it was sitting on my bookshelf, and there was no way I could know what it said about the French Revolution ahead of time; I didn't pick it because it agreed (or disagreed) with any opinion I might have. Regarding the Columbia Enc., this is a 1980 paperback, 1-volume, 950-page concise encyclopedia. I don't think that's "too old" for something that happened in 1789, but if someone has a more recent edition, by all means add it.
Now, it's your turn. Please add a bullet item above, with a synopsis of your encyclopedia selection. Important: secondary sources are endless, not appropriate here, and may derail the discussion. Please stick to the WP:TERTIARY sources. Thanks! Mathglot ( talk) 00:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the addition of the entry for the Great Soviet Encyclopedia above, just noting that the source given is not actually the encyclopedia, but rather points to this article at the blog "Espresso Stalinist". It's not clear if this entry purports to be a translation of the Russian encyclopedia article, excerpts from it, commentary on it, or some combination. In any case, it's not the encyclopedia article. (Disclosure: I added the ref myself in this edit, copying the entire reference from an earlier one added by 021120x.) Mathglot ( talk) 21:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Am waiting for my local public library open back up; when they do, I should have access to three more encyclopedias. Mathglot ( talk) 08:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC) Update: still closed. Mathglot ( talk) 01:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Historians differ widely as to its causes. Some see it as an intellectual movement, born from the liberal Enlightenment, born from the 18th cent.; some, as a rebellion of the underprivileged classes against feudal oppression; others, as the assertion of the new capitalist bourgeoisie against an outdated and restricted economic system—in the fixed order of the ancien regime, France was still ruled by two privileged classes, the nobility and the clergy, who refused to give up any of their privileges and supplemented their dwindling funds and exacting dues from teh more productive bourgeoisie.
Causes include a large underfed population, a loss of peasant support for the feudal system, an expanding bourgeoisie that was excluded from political power, and a fiscal crisis worsened by participation in the American Revolution.
Although scholarly debate continues about the exact causes of the Revolution, the following reasons are commonly adduced: (1) the bourgeoisie resented its exclusion from political power and positions of honour; (2) the peasants were acutely aware of their situation and were less and less willing to support the anachronistic and burdensome feudal system; (3) the philosophes had been read more widely in France than anywhere else; (4) French participation in the American Revolution had driven the government to the brink of bankruptcy; (5) France was the most populous country in Europe, and crop failures in much of the country in 1788, coming on top of a long period of economic difficulties, compounded existing restlessness; and (6) the French monarchy, no longer seen as divinely ordained, was unable to adapt to the political and societal pressures that were being exerted on it.
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |author1=
has generic name (
help)
Historians have identified numerous contributing factors behind the revolution, including deepening socioeconomic disparities and growing public resentment of the privileges enjoyed by the elite social and religious classes. In addition, the new wave of political and social thought known as the Enlightenment was spreading throughout the continent, fueling interest in revolutionary opposition to the inequities of the feudal system.
Historians agree that it was this financial crisis that erected the stage on which the French Revolution of 1789 was enacted. They do not agree, however, on whether this was only the immediate cause of a much longer and deeper crisis within French society. Were the long-term pressures of royal state-making that fueled pressures to remove the nobility's fiscal immunities paralleled by another challenge to the nobility, from a wealthier, larger, and more critical bourgeoisie and a disaffected peasantry? If this was not the case, it could be argued that there was no deep-seated, long-term crisis within this society, that the Revolution had only short-term and therefore relatively unimportant causes, and that it was therefore avoidable.
Since the early 1990s some historians have seen debates about the socioeconomic origins of the Revolution as moribund and have contested the applicability of terms such as class and class-consciousness to eighteenth-century France. Instead, they have argued that the origins and nature of the Revolution are best observed through an analysis of "political culture," especially the emerging sphere of "public opinion." Other historians have focused on the "material culture" of eighteenth-century France, that is, the material objects and practices of daily life. From this research it seems clear that a series of interrelated changes—economic, social, and cultural—was undermining the bases of social and political authority in the second half of the eighteenth century.
Wikipedia articles constantly make references to sources other than tertiary sources. This is obviously an attempt to cherry pick sources, in this case, a few selected encyclopedias, that only give outline coverage to the events of the war with nothing more than generic coverage to the causes and ideas that give rise to the French Revolution. As outlined, there are more than enough facts to support the idea that the American Revolution, fought by France alongside the Americas, to support the idea that the American Revolution fed right into the French Revolution. Obviously the French had their own reasons for a revolution, and it's very curious that it involved a measure of class warfare, as occurred before and during the American Revolution. To ignore the idea that these two parallel advents had no influence in the thinking behind the French Revolution is naive, to say the least. There are too many facts, supported by many sources, to be ignored here, and we should not limit our sources to a few select encyclopedias. That these encyclopedias don't even mention Jefferson, who authored the French Declaration, or Lafayette, whose writings appeared in French journals in the years leading up to the war, or Franklin, who worked along side French revolutionary writers, etc, clearly indicates that these are simply overly simplistic accounts that leave much to be desired. We can not ignore all the scholarly sources that lend us in depth coverage as to the causes of the French Revolution. This seems like an underhand attempt to push a POV that attempts to sweep many facts under the rug and is obviously a clumsy attempt at censorship. This article employs dozens of secondary and scholarly sources. What is the plan now -- to ignore the lot of them? -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 19:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Insert : Have to disagree on that note. We have a basic statement, not exclusive to American influence, now down in the third paragraph of the lede. France came away from the American Revolutionary War, which they helped to win, fully inspired by the idea of revolution, which was soon to follow in France, with the help and inspiration of notable figures from the American Revolution. Out of dozens of statements in the lede, this idea deserves a least one mention in the lede. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
All I ask is that we give brief commentary about these things in the narrative, where appropriate, per sources.
Sorry, but you have not established a "tiny minority view". There are just too many facts involved for the sources to be ignoring them. Along with numerous examples outlined, from French and other non American sources, this has been explained for you already. Btw, mention of France's involvement in the ARW article was in reference to the spirit of scholarship here, which apparently went right over your head, as you continue to drag the discussion down to a contentious level with your cherry picking, empty claims about a "minority view" and your misrepresentation of my attempts at conciliation. At this point it seems rather clear you have no intention of arriving at any sort of compromise. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Listed below are a couple of passages take from François-Alphonse Aulardp's work, a French author, used in the Bibliography of this article.
Our bibliography is filled with scholarly sources and I'll continue to make reference to them as we go along. There is just too much involvement with the Americas during the French Revolution for us to be ignoring.
-- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
As was said, I don't wish to commit an entire section, or several paragraphs, covering American influence in the years leading up to the French Revolution. Your contention that only a "tiny minority of historians" cover American involvement remains far from substantiated and tells us you feel that the 'majority' of scholars are rather ignorant or complacent about the significant facts that have been outlined for you, several put forth by French and non American sources. And no, I am not cherry picking and have not asserted that we only consult a narrow range of sources – I have every intention of continuing to explore the sources far and wide, as I have been doing, with success. You assert that, "I never said you should look no further than the encyclopedias, that is false", but you also said, "Please stick to the WP:TERTIARY sources." Okay, which is it?? There is a simple "resolution": Prove that American influence is only represented by a "tiny minority" of scholars, in spite of the facts outlined, above, and below, and when you come to terms with the reality that isn't going to occur, please help us out with a reasonable compromise. France went into debt supporting and fighting for the American Revolution, yet you expect us to believe that upon their return home to their mother country, who had eyes on the American Revolution, from the start, that they had no aspirations of throwing off their own oppressive monarchy, as if doing so was some sort of big fat unrelated coincidence. It would help matters if you didn't carry on as if someone was trying to introduce the 'square wheel' into the narrative. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 02:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
More sources outlining American involvement forthcoming. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 23:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
In six years of fairly active editing, I've never been involved in either an ANI or a DNR; in the last few weeks I've been tagged on both, as well as being accused of lack of civility, hounding, stalking, character assassination, ad hominem attacks and a few others I can't immediately recall. We should be able to resolve these issues without arousing that level of hostility - and if we can't, maybe we should step out. Which is what I've done, so I'm not going to involve myself in this discussion but I'd like to make a couple of comments FWIW.
(1) Take a look at Wikipedia guidelines on Writing a Good Lead; it provides suggestions for a lot of the ground recycled above. I'm not a procedures guy per se but consciously ignoring guidelines is far more useful than ignorance of them;
(2) We have to accept interpretations of history vary, and be prepared to challenge our own, not just those of others. Dunkirk is viewed very differently in the UK from France; Canadians and Americans see the War of 1812 from almost polar opposites.
(3) Lafayette is a far more substantial figure in American accounts of the French Revolution than he is in France. The idea the debt incurred fighting the American war broke the French economy is not true; in 1788, total French debt was only 55% of GNP, versus 181% in the UK, 62% in the US. (I've updated the Causes section in the article if you're curious). Yes, (parts of) the wording of the Declaration came from Jefferson; Ho Chi Minh's declaration of Vietnamese independence in 1946 was deliberately lifted from the US version and I've yet to see any American claiming credit for that revolution. We need to be careful about overly simplistic causal conclusions;
(4) The Lead summarises the article content; if its not in the content, it can't be in the Lead. So the huge amounts of energy spent on this have arguably started from the wrong place. While this has been going on, I've updated large parts of the article - comments welcome.
(5) Wikipedia stats show between 50-60% of users only ever look at the Lead; so it does need to be 'correct'.
(6) However, we can't just say its not covered in French or English history books, so leave it out. This is English-language Wikipedia; many will be American, who have been taught a specific view. If we say nothing about the connection between the two events, we miss an opportunity; if we recycle popular or minority tropes, we're misleading them (my objection to the wording inserted on 28 May). So we have to say something - I liked the version suggested on 8 October, which has now been replaced, but I can live with the current one. Robinvp11 ( talk) 10:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
That argument, such that it is, can be used in regards to the coverage of any topic. As such, we look to all the sources that cover the events in question. As you may have noticed below, User 021120x has provided us with a tertiary source, if that is really what you need all by itself to justify the coverage. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
At this point we don't need any mathematical estimations about the number of sources out there, either way. I think we've heard enough empty claims about a "tiny minority", demands for tertiary sources only, ...
Re moving goalposts; I totally agree that's happened. Let me quote 021120x's comment above; Any individual with a neutral and objective viewpoint can see that there is no legitimate reason to censor any and all mention of American influence from this article.
Here is the edit I produced on 15 September; "Comparisons to the earlier American Revolution were first made in 1800 by conservative reactionary Friedrich von Gentz. [1] The 1789 National Assembly was initially dominated by aristocrats like Lafayette, who idealised the American Patriot cause; the Declaration of the Rights of Man was based on the US Declaration of Independence. [2] However, since the causes of the French Revolution were very different, the solutions proposed became far more radical, and the nobility quickly superseded."
On 8 October, I produced the current wording, based on input from two other editors; "The intellectual origins of the Revolution came from a global network of European and American 'patriots', who shared ideas and political principles, contacts accelerated by the American Revolution. [3] Together, they marked the beginning of the Age of Revolution, which continued into the mid-19th century and impacted much of Europe and the Americas. [4] However, the French quickly discarded the American Revolution as a reference point, and they are generally viewed as distinct events, with different causes. [5]"
Can anyone tell me how either of these fail to comply with the statement above? Despite that, I was hit with an ANI on 12 October, followed by a DNR; for anyone unfamiliar with Franz Kafka, I suggest reading the ANI thread.
We all need to take responsibility, rather than pointing fingers at others, or filing ANIs if we don't get our own way. This whole thing has consumed masses of energy from over 10 editors, on a minor topic. That's what I resent - and while the apparent abdication of any sense of personal liability for this maelstrom of accusations doesn't surprise me, it does annoy me. If that leads to another ANI, then so be it. Robinvp11 ( talk) 18:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Robinvp11, yes, your lede edit, approved by two other editors, is more than appropriate, and just for the record, has the support from at least two more editors here. Indeed the finger-pointing and recitals about policies and guidelines serves nothing but an obfuscation.
Mayhglot, this is at least the third time I've had to deal with your finger-pointing. Yes, I made issue with your cherry picking because you came right out and said, "please stick to tertiary sources". Now you are changing that position, which is fine. However, I am not the one who is still trying to prevent a couple of brief comments, in a compromising capacity, about American involvement, nor have I ever attempted to limit the selection of our sources, as you have, and another editor is attempting to do. Several notable French authors, and other non American historians, have covered the events in question, so it's not as if I'm searching only for an American POV. Anyone of these French authors carries more weight than all these generic encyclopedia articles combined, on notability and reputation alone. We have dozens of sources in our Bibliography, and a good number of them (and I haven't checked them all yet) cover American involvements, i.e.significant events that led up to the French Revolution. That you seem to think the influence of major ARW figures like Franklin, Jefferson, Lafayette, Paine and others don't amount to anything worth mentioning is a bit one sided, and is indeed a NPOV issue, esp when you consider their involvements, per the French Declaration', the formation of the Assembly of Notables, organization and command of the French militia, etc Thanks. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Just a reminder: WP:Reliable Sources : "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." Even if the topic of American involvement and influence was a "minority view", which has not been substantiated, it still has to be covered in proportion. Given all the events involving the Americans leading up to the French Revolution it would be highly inappropriate to ignore these things, given all the sources that have covered them. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
References
As Encyclopedia sources go, User 021120x has provided us with an excellent one, which can be viewed here. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Here are a couple of more insightful statements from noted French historian François Furet's 1970 work, French Revolution, that should leave no doubt as to the influence the American Revolution had on the soon to arrive French Revolution:
I'm missing something; what's wrong with the current (sourced) wording? Robinvp11 ( talk) 18:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Afaic, the repetitive nature of discussions on this Talk page amply demonstrates that this dispute about the causes of the French Revolution and to what extent the American Revolution was a contributory factor is going around in circles. I'm not sure what is to be gained by continuing to discuss here, and I'm open to other alternatives. WP:3O is one of them, but I'm not sure if that would be effective. I'm aware that someone brought that to WP:DRN before, and that it apparently was rejected; I don't know the details. Maybe this is the time to bring it to DRN again. What does anyone else think about this? Mathglot ( talk) 18:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
What should we do with the paragraph that says that the American revolution was an inspiration to the French Revolution
Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette saw the French Revolution as a direct consequence of the American Revolution
And, if you truly had an honest concern about the opening of the article following the body,
as you are the one who is trying to stone wall any coverage of American influence...
Any one of these French historians carries more weight than all your carefully selected generic encyclopedia articles can ever hope to.
You have yet to make the case about a "tiny minority"...
considering your rigid stance against coverage of American involvement...
If you want to support an idea, you need to give us something more than what a few source didn't say.
Then along came the expectation that we consult only Tertiary sources, while we are expected to ignore the many dozens of sources in our Bibliography, and elsewhere.
as you are the one who is trying to stone wall any coverage of American influence...
Any one of these French historians carries more weight than all your carefully selected generic encyclopedia articles can ever hope to.
You have yet to make the case about a "tiny minority"...
considering your rigid stance against coverage of American involvement...
If you want to support an idea, you need to give us something more than what a few source didn't say.
Then along came the expectation that we consult only Tertiary sources, while we are expected to ignore the many dozens of sources in our Bibliography, and elsewhere.
It seems you have made it rather clear that you are completely closed to the idea of any sort of coverage about an American influence in the years leading up to the French Revolution, in spite of the glaring facts and many sources
Here is yet another scholarly source that helps to define an American influence before the French Revolution.
Actually we've been through this -- the idea that we must search through "ten thousand sources" to determine validity and weight – an expectation I'm sure you've never held yourself to. You're implying that since there are 'ten thousand' sources out there that there must be ten thousand points of view, which more than suggests that historians overall are a bunch of idiots who live in a vacuum and all have their singular and narrow point of view, which is nonsense. I'm not searching for points of view in particular, I'm searching for events, facts, and the events are constant, widely covered by numerous scholarly sources. When we have several widely noted sources to cite from, that's all that's really needed. If there is a widely noted source that says something to the contrary, 'then' we address that issue, but at this late date no such source has been forthcoming. Again, we don't determine weight, etc by what some of the sources don't say, we determine these things by what they do say, and 'who' is covering these things and how the events in question fit into the greater picture. At this point we have provided a good number of widely recognized (i.e.French, non American and other) scholarly sources, so the repeated obfuscations and goal post moving are really uncalled for. The events in question speak for themselves in terms of weight, (i.e.Jefferson and the French Declaration of Rights..., Lafayette's organization of the French Assembly of Notables, Franklin, Minister to France, widely respected and admired by the French, their writings widely published in French journals, etc, etc...), so all we do is find enough sources to support these things, in terms of facts, which has more than amply been done at this point The repetitive and unyielding contentions such as this is exactly why I've been adding more sources. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I have spent the last week rewriting the article and reading Sources from an overall perspective rather than one position. Understanding different viewpoints is never wasted, but my conclusion is to ask why so much time's been spent on this. Suggesting another DRN given the inability to compromise shown so far seems ludicrous; I'm not even sure you'll be allowed to open one. I would also point out over-using these procedures can be viewed as a conduct violation, particularly if those asking for them have previously engaged in personal attacks (eg 'ignorance of history'). So I'm not going to participate except for referring the arbitrator to this.
Nearly every single article or source I've read (which includes every one of those advanced in support of a specific viewpoint eg Lefebvre, Jourdan, etc) suggests connections between the two events are multifarious and complex, and claims for the preponderance of one over the other generally driven by nationalism or for political ends.
The article by Ludwikowski (an American legal professor - there are others) goes through this is some detail. An English translation of Montesquieu was first published in Boston in 1762; in his personal correspondence, Jefferson admits he owes him a great debt, but in public emphasises Locke. For a variety of reasons (read the article if you're curious) the Founding Fathers were anxious to emphasise the British roots of their thinking; so while simultaneously claiming credit for influencing the French, they denied any French influence on their own. Which sounds familiar.
The Lead on the American Revolution, does not contain a single word on the influence of French thinking on the Patriots; fine by me. Apart from a fleeting reference to the 1778 Treaty (inserted at my insistence), even the American Revolutionary War Lead barely mentions the massive contribution made by France to US victory. Several editors in this thread have contributed to those articles; arguing the financial debt France incurred supporting the US and the intellectual debt incurred by French participants were so significant they need to be in this Lead, but not vice versa, does not give the impression of neutrality. Which everyone keeps assuring me is their only motivation.
There are two issues; (1) Did the American Revolution influence the French? Yes. (2) Is it significant enough to warrant inclusion in the Lead of this article? After considerable work on updating the relevant section of the article, my answer is No. It could usefully be in the articles on the Declaration, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights etc but not here. Based on that, the second paragraph should be removed; and I wrote it.
Robinvp11 ( talk) 11:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
So.. I've been pinged on the ANI multiple times about this article... and I'm the one who first volunteered to mediate- and then closed it once I realized there was an open ANI. And I've been following the discussion this whole time and I have some advice for ya'll...... Stop making this personal. At some point most of those participating in this "discussion"- and believe me I am stretching the very limits of that word to include what is going on above this post in its definition- Those of you involved have ceased academic debate and become condescending, arrogant, and demeaning. Other editors are going to be less inclined to listen to your logic when they are distracted by your delivery. A few of you have tried to remain professional- but most have treated your opponents like they are idiots. I used to teach communication/debate and let me tell you- most of you would be receiving F's right now.
So... now to the advice- Back up. Stop assuming the worst of your fellow editors. Stop posting walls and walls of text- be concise. Be courteous. And be willing to give up something to make a compromise. Decide what is your most important gain- and be willing to negotiate to achieve that. Right now- this topic will probably not be accepted at the DRN because there are too many of you, and there is too much disrespect. It would fail. every person involved here should take a step back- and look at how you are communicating with your fellow editors- how would you feel if they said the words you are saying right back at you? Would it make you feel better about yourself? Would it encourage you to change your mind? It doesn't matter if someone else started slinging mud first- if you participated- you are just as dirty. So quit the rudeness. Start treating each other with respect- and lets get this issue resolved!! Just the two cents of someone not involved but watching this for a few weeks now.
Nightenbelle (
talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually that is the plain truth. The original contention was that there were "zero" sources that cover American involvement and influence. When that was proven to be far from the truth the argument changed in that only a "tiny minority" covered these ideas. Since then many sources have been produced that cover the ideas of American involvement and influence, so you came up with the idea that we should only check tertiary sources, generic encyclopedia articles. That argument can be applied to any idea. i.e.Since there are so many secondary sources, we should only consult tertiary sources, which is a bit ridiculous. Did it ever occur to you that many secondary sources have already consulted many other sources, and possess a 'tertiary' capacity of their own? Look at the bibliographies in some of these secondary sources -- filled with references to other sources. Now here you are again, running your idea that "tens of thousands" of sources must be checked to determine weight. More than enough sources have been presented, some by noted French historians, that clearly show that there is more than enough weight behind these events for us to mention them in brief. How many sources do you require? 200? 500? 1000? It seems you are just brushing off any sources that don't suit your position, just as you did when you claimed that "Literally none of these are historians..." which was brought to your attention already. Good faith? -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
"Literally none of these are historians...". I've consistently said that we need a broader overview of the sources to determine weight. Tertiary sources are a very good way of doing that. I've explained exactly why secondary sources are a poor way of doing that for this particular subject. If your argument is as strong as you claim it is, then you will have no problem finding tertiary sources that back it up, and there's a good likelihood that you will convince me to support inclusion of some statement about American influence in the lede. However, with 8 of 9 tertiary sources not mentioning the American revolution, I'm leaning strongly against inclusion at the moment. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 11:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
so you came up with the idea that we should only check tertiary sources...
You are basing the issue on what a few encyclopedia don't say.
You are... insisting that we only support it with tertiary sources...
...knowing full well that they are only generic and general accounts about a revolution that was very involved in many things. This is cherry-picking the sources.
You are also singling out one issue, out of many, and insisting that we only support it with tertiary sources, knowing full well that they are only generic and general accounts about a revolution that was very involved in many things.The lede is supposed to be a generic and general account of the revolution, giving a broad overview without going into detail. The fact that encyclopedias give only generic and general accounts is a plus here. I think that encyclopedias would actually be a good way to broadly determine weight for each of the major aspects of the article - not just American influence. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 15:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Important: secondary sources are endless, not appropriate here, and may derail the discussion. Please stick to the WP:TERTIARY sources.
Thank you, User:Nightenbelle.
User:021120x - You were the original poster of the ANI thread, and you were the original poster of the DRN thread. So obviously you have thought, at some time in the past, that there was a content dispute, and you have thought, at some time in the past, that there was a conduct dispute. You also referred more than once to personal attacks. You have said that the content discussion was finished, but you asked for administrative guidance about changes to consensus, and you referred to stonewalling. Of all of the editors involved here, you are the one whose positions either are the most variable or are the hardest to define. Now, my suggestion to you,
User:021120x, is that you do one of the following threefour things:
Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I have not been following the details of the discussion here, and will provide a high-level comment that may be useful or may be ignored. One of the main issues if not the only issue has to do with how much mention there should be of American influence on the French Revolution. That question should be addressed at two (or maybe more) levels, the level of the lede paragraph and in the body of the article. If there is disagreement about whether to mention American influence in the lede, then it probably should not be mentioned. However, it occurs to me that the reason for this disagreement is, in part, that the reliable sources in different countries reflect different national historiographic traditions. I grew up knowing that there had been an American influence on the French revolution, because I learned history in an American high school. I have learned in editing Wikipedia and in dealing with editing disputes that different national historiographic practices have different emphases, and the different national historiographic practices are all reliable secondary sources. In a major high-level article such as French Revolution, Wikipedia should state what the different historiographic emphases are in different national historiographic traditions. In Scotland, I would assume that the influences of the Scottish Enlightenment on both the American Revolution and the French Revolution are given more weight than they are in France, where the influence of the philosophes would be stressed.
My recommendation, then, without having gotten into the details, is that it might be a good idea in the article on the French Revolution to have a section on how the reliable sources present the national historiographic views. That should be in the body of the article, not in the lede. If different national historiographic viewpoints differ about a topic, such as American influence, I would suggest leaving it out of the lede.
This overall approach, of describing different national historiographic views, should apply to many historical topics of global interest, such as World War One and World War Two, not just the French Revolution. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Robinvp11 — The lede in fact says "The intellectual origins of the Revolution came from a global network of European and American 'patriots', who shared ideas and political principles, contacts accelerated by the American Revolution." Instead of referring to "Scottish, Genevan, and Dutch European" we refer to Europeans. Jourdan, however, explicitly says "...contacts accelerated by the American Revolution.", which is understandable as it was the Americans who just went through a successful revolution and threw off the reigns of monarchy, Britain, a long time rival of France, the events of which were closely watched by French revolutionary thinkers and others. The writings about these events in relation to France, by Paine, Franklin, Lafayette and Jefferson, were covered in French journals throughout France in the years leading up to their revolution, thus helping to 'accelerate' the advent of the French Revolution, which is nothing amazing or highly unlikely, all things considered. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 00:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
These are the coments and replies that were blanked out, above. Mathglot's comments are shaded in green.
You either don't understand WP:DUEWEIGHT, or you do, and refuse to acknowledge it. Since I've quoted from it and explained it probably half a dozen times on this page, and you're obviously a smart guy, I have to assume it's the latter. In any case, there's no need to believe my explanations about it; you can completely ignore what I said about WP:DUE, and just go follow the link and read it yourself. What is NOT going to happen at this article, is that we're going to stuff into the article content that gives a skewed view of what historians actually say about the topic.
We are only going by the established facts as they are presented in reliable sources. Jefferson and the declaration, Lafayette's involvement in the Assembly of Notables, etc, are established facts. Benjamin Franklin's involvement with French revolutionary thinkers is widely noted. That is not a "skewed view", so now you can put the "skewed view" idea on the shelf next to your "tiny minority" claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I've explained this also, and linked WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN for you, and explained that I don't have to make a case for a tiny minority. You (or someone that agrees with you) have to make a case for inclusion. That is policy. We've gone over and over this, and your inability or refusal to accept the ONUS, and to repeatedly ask me to prove a negative is an unproductive waste of time for all concerned.
If you are going to assert a negative, you have to prove it. Sorry, but the belabored double talk is becoming something of a blur at this point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I really wish you'd assume good faith. I have no objection whatever, rigid or otherwise, to including coverage of American involvement, or influence, or whatever word you want to call it, as long as it is policy-compliant. My objection, which you seem not to get, is that given the data we have currently on the preponderance of sources about this, it hasn't been proven that such theories (with a couple of exceptions like the obvious influence on the Decl. of R.o.M.) has any support among historians beyond a tiny minority. If you show to me that some facet of American involvement represents a significant minority of views, I'll drop my objection immediately, and add it to the article myself. I don't understand why you don't get this, as I've stated it over and over.
We have produced many notable sources that support the ideas of American involvement and influence -- many of them by noted French historians. I don't have to disprove your unproven claim about a "tiny minority". All that need be done is to provide enough reliable sources, notable sources, that support the idea. Your speculative assertion of a "tiny minority" is just empty talk. You're digressing back to your, 'my stack of books is bigger than yours' argument', which you have yet to even substantiate, let alone prove. This is stonewalling. Given the number of sources out there neither of us can assert that a topic is or isn't covered by a "significant majority". In any case, even significant minority views are allowed to be expressed, but again, American involvement is not a view, it's a fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a request to prove a negative. Sorry, can't do it. But see ONUS and BURDEN, mentioned above.
If you make any sort of assertion, positive or negative, the onus on you is to prove it. Bering in mind that you originally asserted that "zero" sources supported any American influence, you have yet to substantiate that only a "tiny minority" of sources cover the American involvement. Meanwhile, we've produced many. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Closing comment. We have established due weight simply by presenting many notable and scholarly sources that cover the events in question. The idea of a "tiny minority" also remains unsubstantiated. If you don't want to prove a negative, then don't present one as a basis for an argument. Covering what many sources say is not presenting a "skewed view", so please don't exhibit ownership and battleground tendencies by telling us: "What is NOT going to happen at this article, is that we're going to stuff into the article content that gives a skewed view of what historians actually say about the topic." Your direct order aside, saying what many multiple historians say about the facts is not skewing the article, and typically you have not presented one actual example of something that would "skew" the narrative. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 02:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Robinvp11, I have to agree, the influence was a two way street between the various countries involved. There are certainly enough well established facts to support that. I would have no objection with briefly covering how the various countries impacted each other on a social and political level before and during the French Revolution. If this article is ever to make it to FA, per FA criteria it will have to present the various topics comprehensively and in context. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Mathglot, you can stammer and recite the words 'Due-Weight' all you like, but if a topic is covered by multiple notable sources it indeed has weight – or are you seriously trying to convince us that e.g. Jefferson's authoring of the French Declaration has no weight? You started out this debate with me by presenting a google list of books with the claim that "zero" sources supported any American influence, which is utterly ridiculous. Near the top of your own list was the book Thomas Paine and the French Revolution, authored by Carine Lounissi, yet another French historian, an Associate Professor at University of Rouen, and a member of LARCA. Overall you've been stumbling through the debate half blind with unsubstantiated claims about a "tiny minority", Due-Weight, etc while you keep ignoring multiple reliable sources by French and other scholars, but at least in the process you mange to come up with a few things, like the book on Paine. Thanks for that at least. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm cheerfully renewing the call for dispute resolution. I wouldn't have done so, except for the strong encouragement in the closing statement at the recent ANI thread (
perma,
diff) by
GeneralNotability. I hope, more than expect this to go anywhere, given the derailing disaster that occurred
the last time we tried this, but you never know. Brief, bulleted responses appreciated. Please include "yes", "no", or whatever other response you wish. Also, if you could include a brief statement about what the DRN core issue to be resolved should be. The question being surveyed below is: "Should we bring this dispute to
DRN?" Thanks!
Mathglot (
talk) 20:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Update: linked
Nightenbelle,
#From another DRN volunteer above.
Mathglot (
talk) 20:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Can we keep discussion out of the survey section for clarity and readability, in case others wish to contribute there or here? In response to your 20:55, 23 Oct. comment, that's exactly what DRN is for: when "discussion goes on seemingly forever". That's the whole *reason* for requesting DRN. You are right that they won't take it on if it's being discussed somewhere else; can you provide a link please to the other location? Thanks. Mathglot ( talk) 23:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I am willing to open a new case at DRN, and will list as participants any editors who appear to have expressed an interest in moderated dispute resolution. I will be making up the rules as I go along, and I will be setting the calendar to allow the case run for at least through the end of the calendar year. Normally DRN cases take two to three weeks. Rather than trying to reach compromises on wording, my main objective will be to define the scope of a series of neutral well-defined RFCs. I will ask User:GeneralNotability and User:Tenryuu to be aware of the dispute resolution, and, just as importantly, for the participants to be aware that the administrators are at hand with big sticks so that the participants will speak softly. I will open a case at DRN if at least three editors request it, and if an editor opens a proper case request, and the other editors agree, I will moderate it.
I will try to get the questions down to a Yes-No or A-B-C-D form. I will also try to identify questions about the lede separately from questions about the article body.
I will formulate the rules as I go, but they will include:
Now: What editors are willing to take part in modified moderated discussion, the primary purpose of which is to formulate binding RFCs? I've read what look like two Yes's so far. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The connections between the French and American Revolution have been covered in the body of the article. I have now asked Gwillhickers this question three times; Why is this point so important it needs to be in the Lede?. That's the issue.
The Lede in French Wikipedia doesn't mention American influence; the Lede in the American Revolution doesn't even mention British influence, when every Founding Fathers claimed inspiration from them, while some historians refer to the AR as 'the Fourth English Civil War'. The French barely get a mention in the Lede on the American Revolutionary War, when the Patriots would have lost without them. So why is that?
Sometimes its ok to walk away; for example, I fundamentally disagree with the definition of Belligerents etc in the article on the ARW; from my perspective, the explanations provided are simple rationalisations. I also disagree with large chunks of the content - but I walked away because I'm one person and frankly its not going to stop me sleeping at night. So why are we still circling the wagons on this? What great principle is at stake? Robinvp11 ( talk) 17:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, we seem to be right back where we started. I will be initiating another round of discussion at DRN, but the topic of the discussion will not be compromise on article content, but simply the wording of one or more RFCs. One of the RFCs will be about what is anything to say about American influence, in the lede paragraph. Any editor who thinks that American influence should be mentioned in the lede is strongly advised to participate in the discussion, because the discussion will determine what wording is proposed in the RFC. Editors who do not think that American influence needs to be mentioned in the lede are also invited, but the question of whether to mention American influence in the lede will be decided by the RFC, not by the discussion.
Participation in the discussion is the way to influence what is said in the RFCs. Participation in the discussion is not necessary to take part in the RFCs themselves. Is that clear? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I have, on my own initiative, opened a new discussion at DRN. The purpose of the discussion is, at this time, to decide what the wording of the RFC will be. I will be closing the discussion here within 24 hours because I am moving it to DRN, where the first topic will be the wording of the RFC. It appears that the question is whether to keep the second paragraph of the lede, or to delete it. Conduct further discussion at DRN, please. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I have published the RFC below. It will run for 30 days. Any editor can and should express their opinion briefly in the Survey. You may also take part in the Threaded Discussion, but saying the same thing a third time probably will not change anyone's mind.
If no one raises any more issues in DRN, I will close the DRN in 48 hours. Anyone may raise additional issues, which will probably result in more RFCs.
The blocked editor will come off block and may take part in the RFC. If the DRN is still running, they may also take part in the DRN. All editors taking part in the DRN will comply with the rules that I provide for the DRN.
Does that answer your questions about discussion? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Robert, the Rfc has ended. I wanted to thank you for the closure request, but especially for all your work here, as well as at the DRN, ANI, and frankly I've forgotton where-all-else, but I know it's been a lot, and not easy, and must have been frustrating at times. Your untiring efforts have not gone unappreciated; the article is the better for it. Please keep up the good work, and thanks again! (Adding @ Acebulf, Thucydides411, Robinvp11, and TheVirginiaHistorian:) Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 10:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Along with the discussions here, there is also a section at the DRN for a discussion, and another for a Threaded discussion. Then there will be a follow up with an RFC, perhaps two. Initially I had the idea that, since the issue has been discussed at length here, that the DNC forum would simplify matters, yet after the DRN process, with its yet to come discussions, we will be involved with maybe two more RFCs. This will take quite some time, esp if we go through the same debates all over again. Meanwhile, the article can't be edited. I had hoped that the DRN would simply decide on whether to include the existing lede statement and that an uninvolved administrator at DRN would make the call after we made our simple statements. The effort to resolve this is greatly appreciated, but overall, this doesn't seem like a simple way of resolving the issue and could very well compound matters for some time. Hope I am wrong on that note. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I will explain a few things. First, the purpose of the Threaded Discussion is to allow the editors to talk past each other. It can be ignored, but some editors want to talk and talk and talk. Second, the decision as to whether to include the lede paragraph will be made here, in Talk:French Revolution, by RFC. The DRN will only decide what will be in the RFC, and we think that the first RFC will simply be the controversial lede paragraph. The RFC will be open to everyone, not just the current participants, and will run for 30 days. When it is closed, it becomes binding. Third, the blocked editor will come off block and will be able to participate in the RFC. I will decide whether to let them participate in the DRN, but it is the RFC that decides on article content. Are there any further questions? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Below is text taken from French scholar, Annie Jourdan, covering the extent of American influence before the beginning of the French Revolution. By now there should be little doubt of the connections between the A.R.W. and the F.R. and its significance.
Before the French Revolution, under monarchical rule, there was no freedom of the press before 1793 when Louis XVI was executed. While issues of enlightenment and reform were tolerated in French journals, there were stiff penalties, even death, if one were to publicly speak out against the King in terms of his removal from the French throne. During this time American newspapers were covering the events as they unfolded before the French Revolution, and many of these found their way into France. Below is a journal worth reading, (and an excerpt) by Dr. Beatrice F. Hyslop, which covers how American Newspapers helped to fuel the sentiment behind the coming French Revolution. It is advents such as this, covered in reliable sources, that provide us with good reason to cover American involvement in the lede and in the body of the text, in due proportion. -- Enjoy.
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)Here is an excerpt which should give one an idea of the capacity in which American newspapers publicly defended the French revolution and its cause:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the second paragraph of the lede section be left in the article, or removed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The second paragraph currently reads:
The intellectual origins of the Revolution came from a global network of European and American 'patriots', who shared ideas and political principles, contacts accelerated by the American Revolution. Together, they marked the beginning of the Age of Revolution, which continued into the mid-19th century and impacted much of Europe and the Americas. However, the French quickly discarded the American Revolution as a reference point, and they are generally viewed as distinct events, with different causes.
Enter your statement to Keep or Delete the paragraph in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey.
You may engage in threaded discussion in the section for Threaded Discussion. (However, it is not necessary or useful to repeat the same arguments that have already been made that are still visible on this talk page.)
Do not change the structure of this RFC. The Survey will take place here, not anywhere else. The DRN has been failed because it was apparently confusing at least one editor. Just take part in the Survey right below here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The causes of the French Revolution are complex and are still debated among historians. Following the Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War,[5] the French government was deeply in debt. It attempted to restore its financial status through unpopular taxation schemes, which were heavily regressive. Leading up to the Revolution, years of bad harvests worsened by deregulation of the grain industry and environmental problems also inflamed popular resentment of the privileges enjoyed by the aristocracy and the Catholic clergy of the established church. Some historians hold something similar to what Thomas Jefferson proclaimed: that France had "been awakened by our [American] Revolution." 6 Demands for change were formulated in terms of Enlightenment ideals and contributed to the convocation of the Estates General in May 1789. During the first year of the Revolution, members of the Third Estate (commoners) took control, the Bastille was attacked in July, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was passed in August, and the Women's March on Versailles forced the royal court back to Paris in October. A central event of the first stage, in August 1789, was the abolition of feudalism and the old rules and privileges left over from the Ancien Régime.
Historians have ascribed many origins and causes to the French Revolution, but they do not always clarify the distinction between the two categories...
Among the political and ideological causes of the French Revolution, one might consider its foreign roots, a subject about which little, if anything, has been written...
As far I know, however, no historian has emphasized the intense interactions among international patriots in the years before 1789 or researched their impact on the French Revolution.Jourdan herself describes her focus on American influence as an obscure minority view; devoting an entire paragraph of the lead to it is absurdly WP:UNDUE. Mentioning it briefly in the body as one of many competing theories for one of the innumerable influences on the French Revolution makes sense; but stridently declaring it in a full paragraph of the lead gives the impression that there is some overwhelming scholarly consensus that this was the intellectual origin of the French revolution, which is emphatically not the case. Also note that the paragraph does not currently summarize any part of the lead - nothing in the body remotely supports its strident and weakly-sourced declaration that
the intellectual origins of the Revolution came from a global network of European and American 'patriots'. Again, it does not even accurately summarize Jourdan (who is careful to note that her view is obscure) - she is much more cautious and merely discusses American influence as one strand among many. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Let's keep in mind that per WP:RFC, it is not a vote at all; closure evaluation depends upon argumentation based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete It gives too much emphasis on what is ultimately not a universally accepted view amongst historians in the lede. The lede should summarize the article, and there isn't a comprehensive discussion of it in the article, so it should definitely be out of the lede. - Acebulf, 11:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
No one is advocating that there was no American influence whatsoever, or that the ARW was primarily the cause of the French Revolution. However, the ARW and American involvement did have a significant influence on the French Revolution, as it demonstrated to France, and the world, that throwing off a monarchy was not an unheard of and unobtainable goal, as I've explained. There are many sources, many by French scholars, that comprehensively cover the American involvement and its impact on the French revolutionary mindset. As such the article needs to better cover the American involvement before and during the French Revolution. This way, the statement in the lede will be better justified. With a little effort it's quite easy to find many sources that cover this idea. Below are three more.-- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The Americans were praised by the French during and after their revolution. The American constitutions were published and distributed across France. (See also, Mallet and Berstine, below.) The sentiment behind the ARW spilled over into France, as became evident in publications and newspapers across that country, and with the interchange between prominent French and American figures. There are simply too many facts, and sources, that exemplify the American involvement, and subsequent influence, for us to be brushing this off as being barely significant any longer. As was said several times, there's no need for lengthy coverage, but there is a need to briefly cover the events in question. This will make the lede statement more appropriate, which I hope is what we all want in terms of a well written and comprehensive article.-- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The 2-step procedure for Introduction innovations
Excerpts from reliable sources
|
---|
|
-- Gwillhickers ( talk) 04:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
two examples
|
---|
|
As the Rfc asks a binary question (keep/remove) a particular paragraph with specific content (listed in the Rfc statement itself above, and corresponding to paragraph 2 of the lede in revision 985758280 of 19:59, October 27, 2020) and that content has been changed, I suppose the Rfc is now moot, since all of the votes now correspond to something that doesn't exist anymore, and the Rfc should be closed? Adding User:Robert McClenon. I suppose one could attempt to alter the Rfc question to take changes into account, but that would also invalidate all votes to this point, so not sure where we go from here. This is basically the scenario I was afraid of, described at WP:DRN#French Revolution Two, in subsection WP:DRN#Summary of dispute by Mathglot, paragraph 4. Mathglot ( talk) 01:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The issue is not whether there was any American influence on the French Revolution, but whether it was so significant it warrants an entire paragraph of a Lede which is supposed to be no more than four.
This is English-language Wikipedia; many will be American, who have been taught a specific view. If we say nothing about the connection between the two events, we miss an opportunity; if we recycle popular or minority tropes, we're misleading them (my objection to the wording inserted on 28 May). So we have to say something.
references & sources copy-pasted from Article
|
---|
|
That’s my two cents. I anticipate additional edits on the contribution. But I’ll await the next Request for Comment to respond further. - TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 21:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
The Intro now reads like this, in revision [[Special:Permalink/986279433|986279433]].
", which will generate: The Intro now reads like this, in revision
986279433. Also, part of your change was to alter the lead content which is the matter under discussion in the Rfc in the previous section, which you participated in. So what's up with that?
Mathglot (
talk) 01:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
"The new paragraphs made by Robinvp11 supercede the gain made by moving."
What's up with that?
"alter the lead content". (a) It places a detail into a Note of interest in American history, adjacent to a larger point about the Atlantic community as it relates to the French Revolution in that article's Introduction. (b) The Talk presentation highlights the non-compliant Schapentolk-1996 reference without a HarvRef in the 'Sources' section.
What's up with that?
To further dispel the notion that a significant American involvement and influence is mostly an American POV and/or a "minority view", a quote from yet another noted French historian, François Mignet, is presented below, which definitively and clearly outlines the idea that American involvement was a significant factor during the years before and during the French Revolution. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 01:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
To further exemplify the French-American connection, Link, Eugene Perry, writes:
-- Gwillhickers ( talk) 04:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, You once mentioned that an RFC was going to run for 30 days. There's nothing to indicate here in Talk that the RFC was closed, while one editor, Robinvp11, went ahead and removed the sentence in question. The edit history for that edit reads:
This is exactly what has occurred, as one of the sentences from the former 2nd paragraph (i.e. "Between 1700 and 1789, the French population increased ...") still remains. Another editor recently said:
The only "argumentation" put forth for removing the sentence in question were empty claims about due weight, largely based on what some encyclopedias didn't say, with no actual "argumentation" to support its removal. Not one scholarly source was presented that outlined why such a statement wasn't significant enough for the lede. Meanwhile dozens of French and other scholars were presented supporting the idea, but were categorically ignored by some editors. Isn't consensus supposed to be based on principles? None were presented. Due weight is supposed to be established by considering the facts in question and by the number of sources that cover them, not by a raw vote.
More than enough notable sources were presented to establish weight for the American involvement. Thus far what we have is a rushed consensus that goes against WP policy. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The RFC is still running, and should run until 27 November, at which time a bot will guillotine it, and then an autopsy can be performed. It appears that we are in agreement that the RFC is still running and will run until 27 November. It should more generally cover whether there should be a paragraph similar to the paragraph in question, about American influence, in the lede.
I have posted a note to WP:AN requesting administrative attention, but no specific action. If there are any other content issues, we can resolve them with more RFCs. RFCs run for 30 days unless withdrawn. Is that understood? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Robin, let's be reminded that I'm not the one who initiated this issue. The discussion goes on mostly because some editors refuse to even acknowledge that there are many notable sources, including several well noted French scholars, who have covered the American involvement involving significant events and have established weight. I've mentioned that French notables fully inspired by the ARW returned to France with the idea of civil liberties and revolution in their minds. -- No comment. It was pointed out that Jefferson and Lafayette were involved drafting the French Declaration, along with organizing the National Assembly. -- No comment. It was mentioned that the influential Franklin was widely admired by the French and worked along side notable French revolutionary writers like comte de Mirabeau. -- No comment. It was mentioned that the U.S. Declaration and various US Constitutions were widely published across France. -- No comment. It was mentioned that U.S. newspapers followed and lent political and social support for the French revolution. -- No comment. It was mentioned that American revolutionary thought was published in journals across France. -- No comment. It was also mentioned that these things are not exclusively an American POV as was first asserted. -- No comment. I've listed dozens of sources for editors to evaluate in this so called discussion and all I've gotten in return, overall, are empty claims about Due-weight, with no comments on the excerpts I've provided. Not one. Since you've mentioned that my contributions are among the largest, now you have a comprehensive reason as to why. This RFC by and large has ignored virtually all points of contention and is little more than a forum to cast a raw vote. All I've seen in terms of opposing arguments are comments about what a few encyclopedias didn't say and unsubstantiated claims about Due-Weight, in the face of all those sources. Robert McClenon was right to initiate another discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard. Maybe this time the same editors will not shy away from the points that have been outlined here and offer some arguments based on what reliable sources 'do' say. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 23:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Gwillhickers said above,
This RFC by and large has ignored virtually all points of contention and is little more than a forum to cast a raw vote.
Perhaps you are right after all. With nine editors responding as of this date, and all of them ignoring the points of contention as if by some nefarious (even prearranged?) purpose, I can think of only one possible explanation. It must be the CABAL. Mathglot ( talk) 03:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Below is more definitive coverage about the American influence by yet another noted French historian, Georges Lefebvre.
The first sentence in the above excerpt clearly makes the comparison between the two declarations, in relation to the National Assembly. That's a very definitive and telling example, the tip of a very large ice-berge if you will. You seem to be trying to suggest that there was no American influence involved anywhere else. The French Declaration, like the American Declaration, were the driving social and political forces behind both revolutions. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I will continue to be
adding facts and sources for consideration as I find them, but as said, the debate for me is over. All that is asked is that policy be observed. —
WP: Due-Weight: "In determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." (emphasis added) --
Gwillhickers (
talk) 01:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
As there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel trying to get editors to reconsider an inclusion for a lede statement on American involvement, I believe it's time for me to bow out of the debate. I truly felt that if enough events and notable sources were presented that this might convince some editors that the American Revolution was significant enough, and not just an "Americano-centric claim", to mention with one statement in the lede. In any case, I appreciate that some editors are willing to better cover these things in the body of the text. As I've said before, I have no desire to see a new section or paragraphs covering the American involvement prior to and during the Revolution. Keep well. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Pldx1 — Thank you for your opinions about "experiments" and "anecedote". As I've said, I've bowed out of the debate over inclusion of the lede statement in question. Most likely it will be removed, regardless if the lede is twice as small, or twice as large. This is about the lede as a whole. I don't see the lede as being too long, given the size of this high-traffic and major subject article, which involves many topics that are lede worthy. Compare the ledes in other major subject articles such as Napoleon, Battle of Waterloo, Napoleonic Wars, American Civil War, American Revolutionary War, French Revolutionary Wars, etc. The length of this lede is smaller proportionately and is nothing unusual. I am opposed to arriving at the article length, and lede length, by using math. Good writing involves comprehensive coverage and leaves out no major details and presents the subject in context. If there are, for example, 20 major topics in the article, we should have 20 summery statements in the lede. We don't trim the lede simply because someone feels it's too long. Given that many (most?) readers only read the lede, and perhaps one or two sections of interest, it's important that the lede gives them something more than a minimalized stack of sentences. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Question: What should we do with the paragraph that says that the American revolution was an inspiration to the French Revolution, currently in the lede?
Good evening all,
I have come across a paragraph discussing the American revolution as a precursor or inspiration to the French Revolution. At first the suspect paragraph was in the lede, which I have now moved to the causes sections, as it seems more appropriate.
In doing so, I reviewed the sources involved for this paragraph, and found them to be lacking. In particular, these two claims are using rather unconvincing, and I'm uncertain of their veracity. Acebulf ( talk) 15:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
From the original letter send by Lafayette to Washington, with which the key was bundled, that this was a gesture of goodwill towards Washington, which Lafayette considered a mentor.
Give me leave, My dear General, to present you With a picture of the Bastille just as it looked a few days after I Had ordered its demolition, with the Main Kea of that fortress of despotism—it is a tribute Which I owe as A Son to My Adoptive father, as an aid de Camp to My General, as a Missionary of liberty to its patriarch.
I believe the conclusion of that phrase (highlighted in italic) might be open to interpretation that supports the view of Claim 1. However, the citation currently in the article mentions this in passing, and seems to be more an opinion of the historian than an accepted view amongst historians. With additional sourcing, this might be acceptable, but as-is, it is unsupported.
This is certainly not a claim accepted by historians. The cited source reads more like an op-ed than an actual article. Regardless, if we are to include a statement that has that strong of a claim, then we would need at least some kind of scholarly source, and even then, it should probably be phrased like: "Historian John Johnson states that "the Americans' successful rebellion over the British may have been a strong causal factor in starting the French Revolution".
As it currently stands, those two claims should probably be removed. It is entirely possible that better sourcing exists, but I have not been able to find it.
With this, I open the floor for discussions as to what we should do with these statements.
Cheers, Acebulf ( talk) 15:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I've added the RfC to "politics, government, and the law". Perhaps User:Yapperbot might recruit more interested parties that way, or if not, then at least it'd attract people from being on another, somewhat related RfC list. ( Summoned by bot) I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 17:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
One thing I can just mention is that I'm pretty sure that Schama, Simon. Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution. does support the position that, as I believe he states, "The French Revolution started in America". I have it on order from my library, and perhaps can confirm soon. Don't know if that is helpful at all. Let me know if I have put my oar in where it does not belong. Truth Is King 24 ( talk) 00:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
What Schama says (pages 64-67) is the fiscal and legislative weaknesses of the Ancien Regime were further exposed by the enormous debt incurred by the French state in fighting the American War, and their inability to finance the debt was among the causes of the Revolution. Which isn't the same as saying one necessarily led to the other. Robinvp11 ( talk) 19:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a huge difference between 'influenced' and 'inspired'; yes, events don't occur in a vacuum, but that implies a two way exchange of ideas. Many of the signers of the Declaration were secular rationalists - I will admit I've only glanced at the article on the American War, but despite the huge acres of space devoted to almost every other topic, neither that or those on individuals like Franklin even mention the debt owed to Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Rousseau.
Since Jefferson wrote both Declarations, its not surprising they resembled each other; Lafayette (who presented it to the Assembly) was out of power by 1790 and lucky to escape with his life. So its misleading to use that as an example of 'inspiration'. The two events were very very different in both causes and outcomes; when Americans today complain about 'deadlock in Washington', they miss the point. The framers of the Constitution assumed they'd reached perfection; the system of checks and balances was designed to prevent change. Modern historians argue as to whether 'Revolution' is even the right word for what happened in the US; that's why Wolfe Tone and other leaders of the 1798 Irish Rebellion specifically referenced the French example, not the American.
So two points; (a) 'Inspired' is the wrong word, because it implies assumptions on the causes and impact of the French Revolution that simply aren't correct; (b) if you want to include the flow of ideas (which I'd support), then there's work to be done on numerous articles (staring with the ARW), not only here. Robinvp11 ( talk) 14:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Modern historians argue as to whether 'Revolution' is even the right word for what happened in the US; that's why Wolfe Tone and other leaders of the 1798 Irish Rebellion specifically referenced the French example, not the American
If we measure radicalism by the amount of change that took place – by transformations in the relationships that bound people to each other – then the American Revolution was not conservative at all; on the contrary: it was as radical and revolutionary as any in history. [4]
The political ideas of the Enlightenment – Locke’s natural rights, Rousseau’s popular sovereignty, Montesquieu’s separation of powers – had once been political abstractions, little more than ideas in books. But the birth of the United States showed that these ideas could serve as a blueprint for modern government. [5]
most important of these contacts were thus books and newspapers and the interpretations and ideas they inspired
Nevertheless, French financial problems and the American and Dutch revolutions inspired the French to think of radical reforms and to justify popular sovereignty
As for Lafayette, since 1783 he had displayed a copy of the Declaration of Independence in the entry hall of his house next to an empty frame "waiting for the declaration of the Rights of France." This declaration would later inspire Lafayette's draft.
Americans believed that the French Revolution of 1789, a decade or so later, was a direct consequence of their revolution. And Lafayette thought so too, which is why he sent the key to the Bastille, the symbol of the Ancien Régime, to George Washington, where it hangs today in Mount Vernon. [6]
References
Some early proponents of the French Revolution were influenced by the American Revolution; though this quickly diminished over time.
These contacts, which increased after the American War of Independence, could be interpreted as causes of the French Revolution. Although they did not directly give rise to the Revolution, we might understand them as second or third rank issues or as indirect challenges to the Old Regime.
From a global perspective, the American and French Revolutions together kickstarted an " Age of Revolution" which spread across the Atlantic.
I think this is the direction we should be going in. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 03:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
As in the 18th century, the American war of independence sounded the tocsin [alarm] for the European middle class, so that in the 19th century, the American Civil War sounded it for the European working class. [1]
The American people, who set the world an example in waging a revolutionary war against feudal slavery, now find themselves in the latest, capitalist stage of wage-slavery to a handful of multimillionaires. [2]
The American Revolution, which in its own time was the model of a revolutionary war, exerted an influence on the struggle of the European bourgeoisie against feudal absolutist regimes. Approximately 7,000 European volunteers fought in the ranks of the American army, including the Frenchmen the Marquis de Lafayette and H. Saint-Simon and the Pole T. Kosciuszko. During the Great French Revolution the insurgents made use of the organizational experience and revolutionary military tactics of the Americans. The victory of the North Americans in the American Revolution promoted the development of the liberation movement of the peoples of Latin America against Spanish domination. The revolution was hailed by the progressive people of many countries, including Russia, where A. N. Radishchev celebrated it in the ode “Liberty.” [3]
Marx, Lenin, and other Soviet scholars cannot in any way, shape, or form be construed as "conservative reactionaries". 021120x ( talk) 17:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
References
I removed the second paragraph of the lead, which made fringe claims for the influence of Americans on the French Revolution. If present at all, this should be way down in the body somewhere. This is a highly Americano-centric claim, and by no stretch of the imagination belongs in the lead, nor probably in the body, either. The French Revolution is one of the most studied events in European, even World history, and every corner of it has been examined, in every generation, from every possible angle. If there were genuine, important influences by Americans, then there would be a whole corner of scholarship with multiple books with titles like, "American Influences on the French Revolution". But how many such books are there? Zero. If it were a very minor, but real, influence, then there would be books with entire chapters by that name. I'm not sure how many there are, but in a spot check of general histories of the French Revolution, I found none. I'd guess that less than one in twenty such histories contain such a chapter; maybe less than one in fifty. This makes this a "tiny minority" of views, and per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, it's questionable whether this content should appear in the article at all. Having it in the lead is WP:CHERRYPICKING and highly undue. I've removed it. Mathglot ( talk) 18:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Passing comment. There are just too many accusations of bias, cherry-picking, fringe views, etc coming from both sides of the fence for me to further participate other than to make this statement: The French Revolution almost immediately followed the American Revolution. It would be a bit presumptuous to say the American Revolution was the major inspirational force behind the French Revolution. It would be equally presumptuous to say that it had no, or negligible, influence. Certainly the French had their own reasons for their revolution, and certainly they didn't exist in a box and never looked to the world around them for precedence or help, as did the Americans during their revolution. I've seen enough references to sources that indeed indicate that there is validity to both views, and that they can even overlap. It would be best to say, in effect, some sources say 'this', some sources say 'that' and let the readers decide what is "fringe", "bias", etc. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The French Revolution almost immediately followed the American Revolution. It would be a bit presumptuous to say the American Revolution was the major inspirational force behind the French Revolution. It would be equally presumptuous to say that it had no, or negligible, influence.
If there are enough sources that express both views this can't be ignored..
— Upon review, no one wants the lede to say that the American Revolution was the "only" or the "major" cause of the French Revolution, so let's not create a straw man on behalf of other editors. You're saying that you support NPOV but at the same time you oppose representing both views with the claim that the majority of historians have only a one-sided view, that the American Revolution, had little to no influence. That you oppose this idea -- "If there are enough sources that express both views this can't be ignored" -- only serves to demonstrate that you seem to harbor a bias of your own, which was also revealed with your "Americano" accusation.
— Where have you substantiated that most historians believe that the American Revolution had little to no impact on the French Revolution? You presented a google list of sources with the claim that that none of them support the idea that the American revolution had little to no impact on the French Revolution, but take a real look at some of the books listed there. Thomas Paine and the French Revolution. Here's another list you might want to avoid
consider.
— Was it also a coincidence that Thomas Jefferson was the one chosen to author the French Declaration of Independence? Sorry, but there are too many sources out there for any one editor around here to be making sweeping one-sided claims such as the ones you're making. Meanwhile you shouldn't be making controversial deletions in the lede in the middle of a debate. That too, also demonstrates an acute bias on your part. Sorry about the curt tone, but you seem to have no intention in reaching a balanced compromise that reflects 'any' influence the American Revolution had on the French Revolution, regardless of the sources support that premise, and regardless of the connections between the two revolutions. --
Gwillhickers (
talk) 23:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
It would be best to say, in effect, some sources say 'this', some sources say 'that' and let the readers decide what is "fringe", "bias", etc.
(1) Before anyone comments further, can I suggest reading what the Lead actually says, then arguing about what it should say.
(2) It is stated above this is simply about "the French drew inspiration and influence from the Americans, which is indisputable, and warrants inclusion." If that is so, I invite everyone to look at the version I produced on 13 September, amended following input on 8 October; see if you can figure out why it was felt necessary to raise first an ANI, then a DRN. Given the speed with which they were resolved, I'm not the only one.
(3) That's not to say I don't have a good idea. You cannot 'bluff' on Wikipedia; everything you write (even amended) can be viewed by anyone. If you claim your wording comes from another editor, and is the result of 'editorial consensus', its easy to check. If you accuse others of lacking neutrality, you better make sure your personal TP isn't littered with interactions proving the opposite, and your personal edit history doesn't contain multiple references to 'British nationalist bias' or Europeans in general lacking insight on American affairs. As a Brit who lived in the US for 12 years and whose kids still do, I'll leave you to imagine how ironic it is to hear that claim.
(4) The good thing about Wikipedia is its full of intelligent people, with different perspectives, from whom you can learn. If you want; I found the article by Annie Jourdan really interesting, and I've learned something. If all you've taken away is to confirm how right you were all along, then hurrah for you I guess, but what a sterile world that must be.
(5) The bad thing about Wikipedia is its full of intelligent people; you might be the intellectual giant of Podunkville, LA, or Greater Dribble, Nowhereshire, able to stun others into submission by your ability to seamlessly switch between 'influence', 'inspire' and 'catalyse'. In the world of Wikipedia, people know what 'ad hominem' means, and if you supply references, there's a good chance someone else will read it rather than just being awed by your ability to dig it out.
(6) On a positive note, I've taken a look at the article in general and its a mess - multiple repetition of the same detail, confusing timelines etc. I'm doing some work on it, (constructive) suggestions welcome. Robinvp11 ( talk) 15:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, we don't count up the sources on both sides of the fence to make a determination as to the weight of an issue.
Mathglot, there is nothing in WP:DUE that indicates the idea that if you have a measure of sources higher than opposing sources that this automatically renders the opposing view as fringe or highly unlikely. A fringe theory or view is only deemed as such when there are little to no sources to support that view. You have yet to even come close to proving any such claim. There are enough well sourced facts that support the idea that the American Revolution had a fair measure of influence on the impetus to bring the French Revolution about. Thomas Jefferson wrote the French Declaration of independence. Benjamin Franklin, US Minister to France, a political philosopher and his close friend comte de Mirabeau, a French revolutionary writer, constantly shared their ideas of revolution. Lafayette, when he returned to France after the American Revolutionary War, fully supported the prospect of democracy and a French revolution, and along with Jefferson, worked with Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès when they drafted the French Declaration of the Rights of Man -- and there are plenty of sources that cover these things. This is not a contest about who has the largest stack of books, and again, you have yet to prove you have. In such cases we look to the established facts to see if they are supported by the sources. You need to put your unsupported math claim aside and start considering the actual history involved. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
As the French Revolution is widely covered, there is no benefit to the discussion in listing what individual authors have to say. In an attempt to break this logjam, what we need, is some solid data about what the majority/minority/tiny minority views are, in order to make any progress. Bearing in mind that per WP:BURDEN the task of proving sufficient support for the American-influence theory lies squarely on those who wish to include it, so, in that sense, those *not* wishing to include it don't need to prove anything at all (contrary to some oft-repeated, non policy-based insistence above that they do), I think that this is nevertheless not an intractable problem, so I'll go ahead and give it a shot.
Both Acebulf and User:Thucydides411 are on the right track here, imho, as the only way to establish the proper treatment of American influence in the article. As Acebulf said, "unless we have reliable commentary on what historians actually believe then guidelines would favor it being left out entirely, and Thucydides411 offered another approach, mentioning that that French article doesn't mention it at all, other than regarding the war debt.
So, I'd like to propose an approach that might shed some light on the question of what the majority/minority views are; namely, the use of tertiary sources. Because the French Revolution is one of the most studied topics in history, it is more difficult to assess the numbers, and thus the weight they represent, by going straight to the secondary sources; it's an embarrassment of riches, and a lot to wade through. (There are ways, however; more on that later, if this approach is inconclusive.) Tertiary sources are "publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources." Besides encyclopedias, that could include good college textbook introductions, historical dictionaries, and similar sources. Encyclopedias are the classic tertiary source. Historiographical reviews or survey articles that look at the treatment of the aggreagate of historians on the topic, would be another tertiary source. A good tertiary source should give us some idea of the general view of historians on this topic, both based on what they say about American influence, and also by what they don't say. If we have a dozen reliable tertiary sources, the "average" will give us an excellent view of the views of serious historians on this topic.
I hope you will help out, by adding items to the "Survey" section below. If you are willing to participate in this approach, and in order to keep things on track, and comprehensible, I'd like to propose a methodology to go along with it. The goal here is to select and summarize one encyclopedia article on the topic, and add your report to the bullet list. So please select one tertiary source, read it through, and make a brief synopsis of it, including some statistics on whether they talk about American influence, and to what extent. I'll include two subsection headers below: "Survey" and "Discussion". It's not by accident that this parallels an oft-used Rfc approach, but this is not an Rfc. (If this approach goes nowhere, we might need an Rfc, later.) In the "Survey" section, please add a bullet item containing the name of your encyclopedia (or other tertiary source), a
citation for it, and then not more than a couples of sentences about what you found. Ideally, your survey summary should betray no clue where you stand on this issue; just a dispassionate assessment of what this one source says about it. Please don't "reply" or add other commentary following someone else's tertiary bullet synopsis; let's keep the "Survey" section lean and mean, and use the "Discussion" section for commentary. Also use the "Discussion" section, if you feel that a sentence or two just isn't enough to fully describe what your source says about this. (Or, use a long |quote=
param in the {{
citation}}.) The goal is to have a lean "Survey" section that has a good number of tertiary sources, each in one bullet item, which is brief, and no discussion there, so you can run down the whole bullet list rapidly and compare. Longer comments and responses to other users should go in the "Discussion" section.
I'm not opposed to changing the methodology if someone has a way to improve it, but can we at least get started with it this way? This Talk page has been going around in circles with no real progress in finding consensus, afaict, and I think this may get us somewhere. I'll start, with one bullet item for the "Columbia Encyclopedia". Please add more! After we have a bunch of them (I'm hoping for a dozen) we can step back, and see where we are with this. Please see guideline at WP:TERTIARY for what sources are applicable here. Ready, steady, Go! Mathglot ( talk) 00:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Here's a model tertiary source synopsis bullet item you can copy-paste and use if you want.
|
---|
Copy this: To generate this:
|
Will go back for entry on French Revolution. 021120x ( talk) 19:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Within the constraints of WP:TERTIARY, please choose your sources as randomly as possible. Any reputable encyclopedia should be fine. I used the Columbia, because it was sitting on my bookshelf, and there was no way I could know what it said about the French Revolution ahead of time; I didn't pick it because it agreed (or disagreed) with any opinion I might have. Regarding the Columbia Enc., this is a 1980 paperback, 1-volume, 950-page concise encyclopedia. I don't think that's "too old" for something that happened in 1789, but if someone has a more recent edition, by all means add it.
Now, it's your turn. Please add a bullet item above, with a synopsis of your encyclopedia selection. Important: secondary sources are endless, not appropriate here, and may derail the discussion. Please stick to the WP:TERTIARY sources. Thanks! Mathglot ( talk) 00:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the addition of the entry for the Great Soviet Encyclopedia above, just noting that the source given is not actually the encyclopedia, but rather points to this article at the blog "Espresso Stalinist". It's not clear if this entry purports to be a translation of the Russian encyclopedia article, excerpts from it, commentary on it, or some combination. In any case, it's not the encyclopedia article. (Disclosure: I added the ref myself in this edit, copying the entire reference from an earlier one added by 021120x.) Mathglot ( talk) 21:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Am waiting for my local public library open back up; when they do, I should have access to three more encyclopedias. Mathglot ( talk) 08:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC) Update: still closed. Mathglot ( talk) 01:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Historians differ widely as to its causes. Some see it as an intellectual movement, born from the liberal Enlightenment, born from the 18th cent.; some, as a rebellion of the underprivileged classes against feudal oppression; others, as the assertion of the new capitalist bourgeoisie against an outdated and restricted economic system—in the fixed order of the ancien regime, France was still ruled by two privileged classes, the nobility and the clergy, who refused to give up any of their privileges and supplemented their dwindling funds and exacting dues from teh more productive bourgeoisie.
Causes include a large underfed population, a loss of peasant support for the feudal system, an expanding bourgeoisie that was excluded from political power, and a fiscal crisis worsened by participation in the American Revolution.
Although scholarly debate continues about the exact causes of the Revolution, the following reasons are commonly adduced: (1) the bourgeoisie resented its exclusion from political power and positions of honour; (2) the peasants were acutely aware of their situation and were less and less willing to support the anachronistic and burdensome feudal system; (3) the philosophes had been read more widely in France than anywhere else; (4) French participation in the American Revolution had driven the government to the brink of bankruptcy; (5) France was the most populous country in Europe, and crop failures in much of the country in 1788, coming on top of a long period of economic difficulties, compounded existing restlessness; and (6) the French monarchy, no longer seen as divinely ordained, was unable to adapt to the political and societal pressures that were being exerted on it.
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |author1=
has generic name (
help)
Historians have identified numerous contributing factors behind the revolution, including deepening socioeconomic disparities and growing public resentment of the privileges enjoyed by the elite social and religious classes. In addition, the new wave of political and social thought known as the Enlightenment was spreading throughout the continent, fueling interest in revolutionary opposition to the inequities of the feudal system.
Historians agree that it was this financial crisis that erected the stage on which the French Revolution of 1789 was enacted. They do not agree, however, on whether this was only the immediate cause of a much longer and deeper crisis within French society. Were the long-term pressures of royal state-making that fueled pressures to remove the nobility's fiscal immunities paralleled by another challenge to the nobility, from a wealthier, larger, and more critical bourgeoisie and a disaffected peasantry? If this was not the case, it could be argued that there was no deep-seated, long-term crisis within this society, that the Revolution had only short-term and therefore relatively unimportant causes, and that it was therefore avoidable.
Since the early 1990s some historians have seen debates about the socioeconomic origins of the Revolution as moribund and have contested the applicability of terms such as class and class-consciousness to eighteenth-century France. Instead, they have argued that the origins and nature of the Revolution are best observed through an analysis of "political culture," especially the emerging sphere of "public opinion." Other historians have focused on the "material culture" of eighteenth-century France, that is, the material objects and practices of daily life. From this research it seems clear that a series of interrelated changes—economic, social, and cultural—was undermining the bases of social and political authority in the second half of the eighteenth century.
Wikipedia articles constantly make references to sources other than tertiary sources. This is obviously an attempt to cherry pick sources, in this case, a few selected encyclopedias, that only give outline coverage to the events of the war with nothing more than generic coverage to the causes and ideas that give rise to the French Revolution. As outlined, there are more than enough facts to support the idea that the American Revolution, fought by France alongside the Americas, to support the idea that the American Revolution fed right into the French Revolution. Obviously the French had their own reasons for a revolution, and it's very curious that it involved a measure of class warfare, as occurred before and during the American Revolution. To ignore the idea that these two parallel advents had no influence in the thinking behind the French Revolution is naive, to say the least. There are too many facts, supported by many sources, to be ignored here, and we should not limit our sources to a few select encyclopedias. That these encyclopedias don't even mention Jefferson, who authored the French Declaration, or Lafayette, whose writings appeared in French journals in the years leading up to the war, or Franklin, who worked along side French revolutionary writers, etc, clearly indicates that these are simply overly simplistic accounts that leave much to be desired. We can not ignore all the scholarly sources that lend us in depth coverage as to the causes of the French Revolution. This seems like an underhand attempt to push a POV that attempts to sweep many facts under the rug and is obviously a clumsy attempt at censorship. This article employs dozens of secondary and scholarly sources. What is the plan now -- to ignore the lot of them? -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 19:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Insert : Have to disagree on that note. We have a basic statement, not exclusive to American influence, now down in the third paragraph of the lede. France came away from the American Revolutionary War, which they helped to win, fully inspired by the idea of revolution, which was soon to follow in France, with the help and inspiration of notable figures from the American Revolution. Out of dozens of statements in the lede, this idea deserves a least one mention in the lede. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
All I ask is that we give brief commentary about these things in the narrative, where appropriate, per sources.
Sorry, but you have not established a "tiny minority view". There are just too many facts involved for the sources to be ignoring them. Along with numerous examples outlined, from French and other non American sources, this has been explained for you already. Btw, mention of France's involvement in the ARW article was in reference to the spirit of scholarship here, which apparently went right over your head, as you continue to drag the discussion down to a contentious level with your cherry picking, empty claims about a "minority view" and your misrepresentation of my attempts at conciliation. At this point it seems rather clear you have no intention of arriving at any sort of compromise. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Listed below are a couple of passages take from François-Alphonse Aulardp's work, a French author, used in the Bibliography of this article.
Our bibliography is filled with scholarly sources and I'll continue to make reference to them as we go along. There is just too much involvement with the Americas during the French Revolution for us to be ignoring.
-- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
As was said, I don't wish to commit an entire section, or several paragraphs, covering American influence in the years leading up to the French Revolution. Your contention that only a "tiny minority of historians" cover American involvement remains far from substantiated and tells us you feel that the 'majority' of scholars are rather ignorant or complacent about the significant facts that have been outlined for you, several put forth by French and non American sources. And no, I am not cherry picking and have not asserted that we only consult a narrow range of sources – I have every intention of continuing to explore the sources far and wide, as I have been doing, with success. You assert that, "I never said you should look no further than the encyclopedias, that is false", but you also said, "Please stick to the WP:TERTIARY sources." Okay, which is it?? There is a simple "resolution": Prove that American influence is only represented by a "tiny minority" of scholars, in spite of the facts outlined, above, and below, and when you come to terms with the reality that isn't going to occur, please help us out with a reasonable compromise. France went into debt supporting and fighting for the American Revolution, yet you expect us to believe that upon their return home to their mother country, who had eyes on the American Revolution, from the start, that they had no aspirations of throwing off their own oppressive monarchy, as if doing so was some sort of big fat unrelated coincidence. It would help matters if you didn't carry on as if someone was trying to introduce the 'square wheel' into the narrative. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 02:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
More sources outlining American involvement forthcoming. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 23:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
In six years of fairly active editing, I've never been involved in either an ANI or a DNR; in the last few weeks I've been tagged on both, as well as being accused of lack of civility, hounding, stalking, character assassination, ad hominem attacks and a few others I can't immediately recall. We should be able to resolve these issues without arousing that level of hostility - and if we can't, maybe we should step out. Which is what I've done, so I'm not going to involve myself in this discussion but I'd like to make a couple of comments FWIW.
(1) Take a look at Wikipedia guidelines on Writing a Good Lead; it provides suggestions for a lot of the ground recycled above. I'm not a procedures guy per se but consciously ignoring guidelines is far more useful than ignorance of them;
(2) We have to accept interpretations of history vary, and be prepared to challenge our own, not just those of others. Dunkirk is viewed very differently in the UK from France; Canadians and Americans see the War of 1812 from almost polar opposites.
(3) Lafayette is a far more substantial figure in American accounts of the French Revolution than he is in France. The idea the debt incurred fighting the American war broke the French economy is not true; in 1788, total French debt was only 55% of GNP, versus 181% in the UK, 62% in the US. (I've updated the Causes section in the article if you're curious). Yes, (parts of) the wording of the Declaration came from Jefferson; Ho Chi Minh's declaration of Vietnamese independence in 1946 was deliberately lifted from the US version and I've yet to see any American claiming credit for that revolution. We need to be careful about overly simplistic causal conclusions;
(4) The Lead summarises the article content; if its not in the content, it can't be in the Lead. So the huge amounts of energy spent on this have arguably started from the wrong place. While this has been going on, I've updated large parts of the article - comments welcome.
(5) Wikipedia stats show between 50-60% of users only ever look at the Lead; so it does need to be 'correct'.
(6) However, we can't just say its not covered in French or English history books, so leave it out. This is English-language Wikipedia; many will be American, who have been taught a specific view. If we say nothing about the connection between the two events, we miss an opportunity; if we recycle popular or minority tropes, we're misleading them (my objection to the wording inserted on 28 May). So we have to say something - I liked the version suggested on 8 October, which has now been replaced, but I can live with the current one. Robinvp11 ( talk) 10:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
That argument, such that it is, can be used in regards to the coverage of any topic. As such, we look to all the sources that cover the events in question. As you may have noticed below, User 021120x has provided us with a tertiary source, if that is really what you need all by itself to justify the coverage. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
At this point we don't need any mathematical estimations about the number of sources out there, either way. I think we've heard enough empty claims about a "tiny minority", demands for tertiary sources only, ...
Re moving goalposts; I totally agree that's happened. Let me quote 021120x's comment above; Any individual with a neutral and objective viewpoint can see that there is no legitimate reason to censor any and all mention of American influence from this article.
Here is the edit I produced on 15 September; "Comparisons to the earlier American Revolution were first made in 1800 by conservative reactionary Friedrich von Gentz. [1] The 1789 National Assembly was initially dominated by aristocrats like Lafayette, who idealised the American Patriot cause; the Declaration of the Rights of Man was based on the US Declaration of Independence. [2] However, since the causes of the French Revolution were very different, the solutions proposed became far more radical, and the nobility quickly superseded."
On 8 October, I produced the current wording, based on input from two other editors; "The intellectual origins of the Revolution came from a global network of European and American 'patriots', who shared ideas and political principles, contacts accelerated by the American Revolution. [3] Together, they marked the beginning of the Age of Revolution, which continued into the mid-19th century and impacted much of Europe and the Americas. [4] However, the French quickly discarded the American Revolution as a reference point, and they are generally viewed as distinct events, with different causes. [5]"
Can anyone tell me how either of these fail to comply with the statement above? Despite that, I was hit with an ANI on 12 October, followed by a DNR; for anyone unfamiliar with Franz Kafka, I suggest reading the ANI thread.
We all need to take responsibility, rather than pointing fingers at others, or filing ANIs if we don't get our own way. This whole thing has consumed masses of energy from over 10 editors, on a minor topic. That's what I resent - and while the apparent abdication of any sense of personal liability for this maelstrom of accusations doesn't surprise me, it does annoy me. If that leads to another ANI, then so be it. Robinvp11 ( talk) 18:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Robinvp11, yes, your lede edit, approved by two other editors, is more than appropriate, and just for the record, has the support from at least two more editors here. Indeed the finger-pointing and recitals about policies and guidelines serves nothing but an obfuscation.
Mayhglot, this is at least the third time I've had to deal with your finger-pointing. Yes, I made issue with your cherry picking because you came right out and said, "please stick to tertiary sources". Now you are changing that position, which is fine. However, I am not the one who is still trying to prevent a couple of brief comments, in a compromising capacity, about American involvement, nor have I ever attempted to limit the selection of our sources, as you have, and another editor is attempting to do. Several notable French authors, and other non American historians, have covered the events in question, so it's not as if I'm searching only for an American POV. Anyone of these French authors carries more weight than all these generic encyclopedia articles combined, on notability and reputation alone. We have dozens of sources in our Bibliography, and a good number of them (and I haven't checked them all yet) cover American involvements, i.e.significant events that led up to the French Revolution. That you seem to think the influence of major ARW figures like Franklin, Jefferson, Lafayette, Paine and others don't amount to anything worth mentioning is a bit one sided, and is indeed a NPOV issue, esp when you consider their involvements, per the French Declaration', the formation of the Assembly of Notables, organization and command of the French militia, etc Thanks. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Just a reminder: WP:Reliable Sources : "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." Even if the topic of American involvement and influence was a "minority view", which has not been substantiated, it still has to be covered in proportion. Given all the events involving the Americans leading up to the French Revolution it would be highly inappropriate to ignore these things, given all the sources that have covered them. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
References
As Encyclopedia sources go, User 021120x has provided us with an excellent one, which can be viewed here. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Here are a couple of more insightful statements from noted French historian François Furet's 1970 work, French Revolution, that should leave no doubt as to the influence the American Revolution had on the soon to arrive French Revolution:
I'm missing something; what's wrong with the current (sourced) wording? Robinvp11 ( talk) 18:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Afaic, the repetitive nature of discussions on this Talk page amply demonstrates that this dispute about the causes of the French Revolution and to what extent the American Revolution was a contributory factor is going around in circles. I'm not sure what is to be gained by continuing to discuss here, and I'm open to other alternatives. WP:3O is one of them, but I'm not sure if that would be effective. I'm aware that someone brought that to WP:DRN before, and that it apparently was rejected; I don't know the details. Maybe this is the time to bring it to DRN again. What does anyone else think about this? Mathglot ( talk) 18:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
What should we do with the paragraph that says that the American revolution was an inspiration to the French Revolution
Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette saw the French Revolution as a direct consequence of the American Revolution
And, if you truly had an honest concern about the opening of the article following the body,
as you are the one who is trying to stone wall any coverage of American influence...
Any one of these French historians carries more weight than all your carefully selected generic encyclopedia articles can ever hope to.
You have yet to make the case about a "tiny minority"...
considering your rigid stance against coverage of American involvement...
If you want to support an idea, you need to give us something more than what a few source didn't say.
Then along came the expectation that we consult only Tertiary sources, while we are expected to ignore the many dozens of sources in our Bibliography, and elsewhere.
as you are the one who is trying to stone wall any coverage of American influence...
Any one of these French historians carries more weight than all your carefully selected generic encyclopedia articles can ever hope to.
You have yet to make the case about a "tiny minority"...
considering your rigid stance against coverage of American involvement...
If you want to support an idea, you need to give us something more than what a few source didn't say.
Then along came the expectation that we consult only Tertiary sources, while we are expected to ignore the many dozens of sources in our Bibliography, and elsewhere.
It seems you have made it rather clear that you are completely closed to the idea of any sort of coverage about an American influence in the years leading up to the French Revolution, in spite of the glaring facts and many sources
Here is yet another scholarly source that helps to define an American influence before the French Revolution.
Actually we've been through this -- the idea that we must search through "ten thousand sources" to determine validity and weight – an expectation I'm sure you've never held yourself to. You're implying that since there are 'ten thousand' sources out there that there must be ten thousand points of view, which more than suggests that historians overall are a bunch of idiots who live in a vacuum and all have their singular and narrow point of view, which is nonsense. I'm not searching for points of view in particular, I'm searching for events, facts, and the events are constant, widely covered by numerous scholarly sources. When we have several widely noted sources to cite from, that's all that's really needed. If there is a widely noted source that says something to the contrary, 'then' we address that issue, but at this late date no such source has been forthcoming. Again, we don't determine weight, etc by what some of the sources don't say, we determine these things by what they do say, and 'who' is covering these things and how the events in question fit into the greater picture. At this point we have provided a good number of widely recognized (i.e.French, non American and other) scholarly sources, so the repeated obfuscations and goal post moving are really uncalled for. The events in question speak for themselves in terms of weight, (i.e.Jefferson and the French Declaration of Rights..., Lafayette's organization of the French Assembly of Notables, Franklin, Minister to France, widely respected and admired by the French, their writings widely published in French journals, etc, etc...), so all we do is find enough sources to support these things, in terms of facts, which has more than amply been done at this point The repetitive and unyielding contentions such as this is exactly why I've been adding more sources. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I have spent the last week rewriting the article and reading Sources from an overall perspective rather than one position. Understanding different viewpoints is never wasted, but my conclusion is to ask why so much time's been spent on this. Suggesting another DRN given the inability to compromise shown so far seems ludicrous; I'm not even sure you'll be allowed to open one. I would also point out over-using these procedures can be viewed as a conduct violation, particularly if those asking for them have previously engaged in personal attacks (eg 'ignorance of history'). So I'm not going to participate except for referring the arbitrator to this.
Nearly every single article or source I've read (which includes every one of those advanced in support of a specific viewpoint eg Lefebvre, Jourdan, etc) suggests connections between the two events are multifarious and complex, and claims for the preponderance of one over the other generally driven by nationalism or for political ends.
The article by Ludwikowski (an American legal professor - there are others) goes through this is some detail. An English translation of Montesquieu was first published in Boston in 1762; in his personal correspondence, Jefferson admits he owes him a great debt, but in public emphasises Locke. For a variety of reasons (read the article if you're curious) the Founding Fathers were anxious to emphasise the British roots of their thinking; so while simultaneously claiming credit for influencing the French, they denied any French influence on their own. Which sounds familiar.
The Lead on the American Revolution, does not contain a single word on the influence of French thinking on the Patriots; fine by me. Apart from a fleeting reference to the 1778 Treaty (inserted at my insistence), even the American Revolutionary War Lead barely mentions the massive contribution made by France to US victory. Several editors in this thread have contributed to those articles; arguing the financial debt France incurred supporting the US and the intellectual debt incurred by French participants were so significant they need to be in this Lead, but not vice versa, does not give the impression of neutrality. Which everyone keeps assuring me is their only motivation.
There are two issues; (1) Did the American Revolution influence the French? Yes. (2) Is it significant enough to warrant inclusion in the Lead of this article? After considerable work on updating the relevant section of the article, my answer is No. It could usefully be in the articles on the Declaration, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights etc but not here. Based on that, the second paragraph should be removed; and I wrote it.
Robinvp11 ( talk) 11:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
So.. I've been pinged on the ANI multiple times about this article... and I'm the one who first volunteered to mediate- and then closed it once I realized there was an open ANI. And I've been following the discussion this whole time and I have some advice for ya'll...... Stop making this personal. At some point most of those participating in this "discussion"- and believe me I am stretching the very limits of that word to include what is going on above this post in its definition- Those of you involved have ceased academic debate and become condescending, arrogant, and demeaning. Other editors are going to be less inclined to listen to your logic when they are distracted by your delivery. A few of you have tried to remain professional- but most have treated your opponents like they are idiots. I used to teach communication/debate and let me tell you- most of you would be receiving F's right now.
So... now to the advice- Back up. Stop assuming the worst of your fellow editors. Stop posting walls and walls of text- be concise. Be courteous. And be willing to give up something to make a compromise. Decide what is your most important gain- and be willing to negotiate to achieve that. Right now- this topic will probably not be accepted at the DRN because there are too many of you, and there is too much disrespect. It would fail. every person involved here should take a step back- and look at how you are communicating with your fellow editors- how would you feel if they said the words you are saying right back at you? Would it make you feel better about yourself? Would it encourage you to change your mind? It doesn't matter if someone else started slinging mud first- if you participated- you are just as dirty. So quit the rudeness. Start treating each other with respect- and lets get this issue resolved!! Just the two cents of someone not involved but watching this for a few weeks now.
Nightenbelle (
talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually that is the plain truth. The original contention was that there were "zero" sources that cover American involvement and influence. When that was proven to be far from the truth the argument changed in that only a "tiny minority" covered these ideas. Since then many sources have been produced that cover the ideas of American involvement and influence, so you came up with the idea that we should only check tertiary sources, generic encyclopedia articles. That argument can be applied to any idea. i.e.Since there are so many secondary sources, we should only consult tertiary sources, which is a bit ridiculous. Did it ever occur to you that many secondary sources have already consulted many other sources, and possess a 'tertiary' capacity of their own? Look at the bibliographies in some of these secondary sources -- filled with references to other sources. Now here you are again, running your idea that "tens of thousands" of sources must be checked to determine weight. More than enough sources have been presented, some by noted French historians, that clearly show that there is more than enough weight behind these events for us to mention them in brief. How many sources do you require? 200? 500? 1000? It seems you are just brushing off any sources that don't suit your position, just as you did when you claimed that "Literally none of these are historians..." which was brought to your attention already. Good faith? -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
"Literally none of these are historians...". I've consistently said that we need a broader overview of the sources to determine weight. Tertiary sources are a very good way of doing that. I've explained exactly why secondary sources are a poor way of doing that for this particular subject. If your argument is as strong as you claim it is, then you will have no problem finding tertiary sources that back it up, and there's a good likelihood that you will convince me to support inclusion of some statement about American influence in the lede. However, with 8 of 9 tertiary sources not mentioning the American revolution, I'm leaning strongly against inclusion at the moment. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 11:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
so you came up with the idea that we should only check tertiary sources...
You are basing the issue on what a few encyclopedia don't say.
You are... insisting that we only support it with tertiary sources...
...knowing full well that they are only generic and general accounts about a revolution that was very involved in many things. This is cherry-picking the sources.
You are also singling out one issue, out of many, and insisting that we only support it with tertiary sources, knowing full well that they are only generic and general accounts about a revolution that was very involved in many things.The lede is supposed to be a generic and general account of the revolution, giving a broad overview without going into detail. The fact that encyclopedias give only generic and general accounts is a plus here. I think that encyclopedias would actually be a good way to broadly determine weight for each of the major aspects of the article - not just American influence. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 15:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Important: secondary sources are endless, not appropriate here, and may derail the discussion. Please stick to the WP:TERTIARY sources.
Thank you, User:Nightenbelle.
User:021120x - You were the original poster of the ANI thread, and you were the original poster of the DRN thread. So obviously you have thought, at some time in the past, that there was a content dispute, and you have thought, at some time in the past, that there was a conduct dispute. You also referred more than once to personal attacks. You have said that the content discussion was finished, but you asked for administrative guidance about changes to consensus, and you referred to stonewalling. Of all of the editors involved here, you are the one whose positions either are the most variable or are the hardest to define. Now, my suggestion to you,
User:021120x, is that you do one of the following threefour things:
Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I have not been following the details of the discussion here, and will provide a high-level comment that may be useful or may be ignored. One of the main issues if not the only issue has to do with how much mention there should be of American influence on the French Revolution. That question should be addressed at two (or maybe more) levels, the level of the lede paragraph and in the body of the article. If there is disagreement about whether to mention American influence in the lede, then it probably should not be mentioned. However, it occurs to me that the reason for this disagreement is, in part, that the reliable sources in different countries reflect different national historiographic traditions. I grew up knowing that there had been an American influence on the French revolution, because I learned history in an American high school. I have learned in editing Wikipedia and in dealing with editing disputes that different national historiographic practices have different emphases, and the different national historiographic practices are all reliable secondary sources. In a major high-level article such as French Revolution, Wikipedia should state what the different historiographic emphases are in different national historiographic traditions. In Scotland, I would assume that the influences of the Scottish Enlightenment on both the American Revolution and the French Revolution are given more weight than they are in France, where the influence of the philosophes would be stressed.
My recommendation, then, without having gotten into the details, is that it might be a good idea in the article on the French Revolution to have a section on how the reliable sources present the national historiographic views. That should be in the body of the article, not in the lede. If different national historiographic viewpoints differ about a topic, such as American influence, I would suggest leaving it out of the lede.
This overall approach, of describing different national historiographic views, should apply to many historical topics of global interest, such as World War One and World War Two, not just the French Revolution. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Robinvp11 — The lede in fact says "The intellectual origins of the Revolution came from a global network of European and American 'patriots', who shared ideas and political principles, contacts accelerated by the American Revolution." Instead of referring to "Scottish, Genevan, and Dutch European" we refer to Europeans. Jourdan, however, explicitly says "...contacts accelerated by the American Revolution.", which is understandable as it was the Americans who just went through a successful revolution and threw off the reigns of monarchy, Britain, a long time rival of France, the events of which were closely watched by French revolutionary thinkers and others. The writings about these events in relation to France, by Paine, Franklin, Lafayette and Jefferson, were covered in French journals throughout France in the years leading up to their revolution, thus helping to 'accelerate' the advent of the French Revolution, which is nothing amazing or highly unlikely, all things considered. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 00:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
These are the coments and replies that were blanked out, above. Mathglot's comments are shaded in green.
You either don't understand WP:DUEWEIGHT, or you do, and refuse to acknowledge it. Since I've quoted from it and explained it probably half a dozen times on this page, and you're obviously a smart guy, I have to assume it's the latter. In any case, there's no need to believe my explanations about it; you can completely ignore what I said about WP:DUE, and just go follow the link and read it yourself. What is NOT going to happen at this article, is that we're going to stuff into the article content that gives a skewed view of what historians actually say about the topic.
We are only going by the established facts as they are presented in reliable sources. Jefferson and the declaration, Lafayette's involvement in the Assembly of Notables, etc, are established facts. Benjamin Franklin's involvement with French revolutionary thinkers is widely noted. That is not a "skewed view", so now you can put the "skewed view" idea on the shelf next to your "tiny minority" claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I've explained this also, and linked WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN for you, and explained that I don't have to make a case for a tiny minority. You (or someone that agrees with you) have to make a case for inclusion. That is policy. We've gone over and over this, and your inability or refusal to accept the ONUS, and to repeatedly ask me to prove a negative is an unproductive waste of time for all concerned.
If you are going to assert a negative, you have to prove it. Sorry, but the belabored double talk is becoming something of a blur at this point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I really wish you'd assume good faith. I have no objection whatever, rigid or otherwise, to including coverage of American involvement, or influence, or whatever word you want to call it, as long as it is policy-compliant. My objection, which you seem not to get, is that given the data we have currently on the preponderance of sources about this, it hasn't been proven that such theories (with a couple of exceptions like the obvious influence on the Decl. of R.o.M.) has any support among historians beyond a tiny minority. If you show to me that some facet of American involvement represents a significant minority of views, I'll drop my objection immediately, and add it to the article myself. I don't understand why you don't get this, as I've stated it over and over.
We have produced many notable sources that support the ideas of American involvement and influence -- many of them by noted French historians. I don't have to disprove your unproven claim about a "tiny minority". All that need be done is to provide enough reliable sources, notable sources, that support the idea. Your speculative assertion of a "tiny minority" is just empty talk. You're digressing back to your, 'my stack of books is bigger than yours' argument', which you have yet to even substantiate, let alone prove. This is stonewalling. Given the number of sources out there neither of us can assert that a topic is or isn't covered by a "significant majority". In any case, even significant minority views are allowed to be expressed, but again, American involvement is not a view, it's a fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a request to prove a negative. Sorry, can't do it. But see ONUS and BURDEN, mentioned above.
If you make any sort of assertion, positive or negative, the onus on you is to prove it. Bering in mind that you originally asserted that "zero" sources supported any American influence, you have yet to substantiate that only a "tiny minority" of sources cover the American involvement. Meanwhile, we've produced many. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Closing comment. We have established due weight simply by presenting many notable and scholarly sources that cover the events in question. The idea of a "tiny minority" also remains unsubstantiated. If you don't want to prove a negative, then don't present one as a basis for an argument. Covering what many sources say is not presenting a "skewed view", so please don't exhibit ownership and battleground tendencies by telling us: "What is NOT going to happen at this article, is that we're going to stuff into the article content that gives a skewed view of what historians actually say about the topic." Your direct order aside, saying what many multiple historians say about the facts is not skewing the article, and typically you have not presented one actual example of something that would "skew" the narrative. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 02:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Robinvp11, I have to agree, the influence was a two way street between the various countries involved. There are certainly enough well established facts to support that. I would have no objection with briefly covering how the various countries impacted each other on a social and political level before and during the French Revolution. If this article is ever to make it to FA, per FA criteria it will have to present the various topics comprehensively and in context. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Mathglot, you can stammer and recite the words 'Due-Weight' all you like, but if a topic is covered by multiple notable sources it indeed has weight – or are you seriously trying to convince us that e.g. Jefferson's authoring of the French Declaration has no weight? You started out this debate with me by presenting a google list of books with the claim that "zero" sources supported any American influence, which is utterly ridiculous. Near the top of your own list was the book Thomas Paine and the French Revolution, authored by Carine Lounissi, yet another French historian, an Associate Professor at University of Rouen, and a member of LARCA. Overall you've been stumbling through the debate half blind with unsubstantiated claims about a "tiny minority", Due-Weight, etc while you keep ignoring multiple reliable sources by French and other scholars, but at least in the process you mange to come up with a few things, like the book on Paine. Thanks for that at least. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm cheerfully renewing the call for dispute resolution. I wouldn't have done so, except for the strong encouragement in the closing statement at the recent ANI thread (
perma,
diff) by
GeneralNotability. I hope, more than expect this to go anywhere, given the derailing disaster that occurred
the last time we tried this, but you never know. Brief, bulleted responses appreciated. Please include "yes", "no", or whatever other response you wish. Also, if you could include a brief statement about what the DRN core issue to be resolved should be. The question being surveyed below is: "Should we bring this dispute to
DRN?" Thanks!
Mathglot (
talk) 20:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Update: linked
Nightenbelle,
#From another DRN volunteer above.
Mathglot (
talk) 20:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Can we keep discussion out of the survey section for clarity and readability, in case others wish to contribute there or here? In response to your 20:55, 23 Oct. comment, that's exactly what DRN is for: when "discussion goes on seemingly forever". That's the whole *reason* for requesting DRN. You are right that they won't take it on if it's being discussed somewhere else; can you provide a link please to the other location? Thanks. Mathglot ( talk) 23:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I am willing to open a new case at DRN, and will list as participants any editors who appear to have expressed an interest in moderated dispute resolution. I will be making up the rules as I go along, and I will be setting the calendar to allow the case run for at least through the end of the calendar year. Normally DRN cases take two to three weeks. Rather than trying to reach compromises on wording, my main objective will be to define the scope of a series of neutral well-defined RFCs. I will ask User:GeneralNotability and User:Tenryuu to be aware of the dispute resolution, and, just as importantly, for the participants to be aware that the administrators are at hand with big sticks so that the participants will speak softly. I will open a case at DRN if at least three editors request it, and if an editor opens a proper case request, and the other editors agree, I will moderate it.
I will try to get the questions down to a Yes-No or A-B-C-D form. I will also try to identify questions about the lede separately from questions about the article body.
I will formulate the rules as I go, but they will include:
Now: What editors are willing to take part in modified moderated discussion, the primary purpose of which is to formulate binding RFCs? I've read what look like two Yes's so far. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The connections between the French and American Revolution have been covered in the body of the article. I have now asked Gwillhickers this question three times; Why is this point so important it needs to be in the Lede?. That's the issue.
The Lede in French Wikipedia doesn't mention American influence; the Lede in the American Revolution doesn't even mention British influence, when every Founding Fathers claimed inspiration from them, while some historians refer to the AR as 'the Fourth English Civil War'. The French barely get a mention in the Lede on the American Revolutionary War, when the Patriots would have lost without them. So why is that?
Sometimes its ok to walk away; for example, I fundamentally disagree with the definition of Belligerents etc in the article on the ARW; from my perspective, the explanations provided are simple rationalisations. I also disagree with large chunks of the content - but I walked away because I'm one person and frankly its not going to stop me sleeping at night. So why are we still circling the wagons on this? What great principle is at stake? Robinvp11 ( talk) 17:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, we seem to be right back where we started. I will be initiating another round of discussion at DRN, but the topic of the discussion will not be compromise on article content, but simply the wording of one or more RFCs. One of the RFCs will be about what is anything to say about American influence, in the lede paragraph. Any editor who thinks that American influence should be mentioned in the lede is strongly advised to participate in the discussion, because the discussion will determine what wording is proposed in the RFC. Editors who do not think that American influence needs to be mentioned in the lede are also invited, but the question of whether to mention American influence in the lede will be decided by the RFC, not by the discussion.
Participation in the discussion is the way to influence what is said in the RFCs. Participation in the discussion is not necessary to take part in the RFCs themselves. Is that clear? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I have, on my own initiative, opened a new discussion at DRN. The purpose of the discussion is, at this time, to decide what the wording of the RFC will be. I will be closing the discussion here within 24 hours because I am moving it to DRN, where the first topic will be the wording of the RFC. It appears that the question is whether to keep the second paragraph of the lede, or to delete it. Conduct further discussion at DRN, please. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I have published the RFC below. It will run for 30 days. Any editor can and should express their opinion briefly in the Survey. You may also take part in the Threaded Discussion, but saying the same thing a third time probably will not change anyone's mind.
If no one raises any more issues in DRN, I will close the DRN in 48 hours. Anyone may raise additional issues, which will probably result in more RFCs.
The blocked editor will come off block and may take part in the RFC. If the DRN is still running, they may also take part in the DRN. All editors taking part in the DRN will comply with the rules that I provide for the DRN.
Does that answer your questions about discussion? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Robert, the Rfc has ended. I wanted to thank you for the closure request, but especially for all your work here, as well as at the DRN, ANI, and frankly I've forgotton where-all-else, but I know it's been a lot, and not easy, and must have been frustrating at times. Your untiring efforts have not gone unappreciated; the article is the better for it. Please keep up the good work, and thanks again! (Adding @ Acebulf, Thucydides411, Robinvp11, and TheVirginiaHistorian:) Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 10:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Along with the discussions here, there is also a section at the DRN for a discussion, and another for a Threaded discussion. Then there will be a follow up with an RFC, perhaps two. Initially I had the idea that, since the issue has been discussed at length here, that the DNC forum would simplify matters, yet after the DRN process, with its yet to come discussions, we will be involved with maybe two more RFCs. This will take quite some time, esp if we go through the same debates all over again. Meanwhile, the article can't be edited. I had hoped that the DRN would simply decide on whether to include the existing lede statement and that an uninvolved administrator at DRN would make the call after we made our simple statements. The effort to resolve this is greatly appreciated, but overall, this doesn't seem like a simple way of resolving the issue and could very well compound matters for some time. Hope I am wrong on that note. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I will explain a few things. First, the purpose of the Threaded Discussion is to allow the editors to talk past each other. It can be ignored, but some editors want to talk and talk and talk. Second, the decision as to whether to include the lede paragraph will be made here, in Talk:French Revolution, by RFC. The DRN will only decide what will be in the RFC, and we think that the first RFC will simply be the controversial lede paragraph. The RFC will be open to everyone, not just the current participants, and will run for 30 days. When it is closed, it becomes binding. Third, the blocked editor will come off block and will be able to participate in the RFC. I will decide whether to let them participate in the DRN, but it is the RFC that decides on article content. Are there any further questions? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Below is text taken from French scholar, Annie Jourdan, covering the extent of American influence before the beginning of the French Revolution. By now there should be little doubt of the connections between the A.R.W. and the F.R. and its significance.
Before the French Revolution, under monarchical rule, there was no freedom of the press before 1793 when Louis XVI was executed. While issues of enlightenment and reform were tolerated in French journals, there were stiff penalties, even death, if one were to publicly speak out against the King in terms of his removal from the French throne. During this time American newspapers were covering the events as they unfolded before the French Revolution, and many of these found their way into France. Below is a journal worth reading, (and an excerpt) by Dr. Beatrice F. Hyslop, which covers how American Newspapers helped to fuel the sentiment behind the coming French Revolution. It is advents such as this, covered in reliable sources, that provide us with good reason to cover American involvement in the lede and in the body of the text, in due proportion. -- Enjoy.
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)Here is an excerpt which should give one an idea of the capacity in which American newspapers publicly defended the French revolution and its cause:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the second paragraph of the lede section be left in the article, or removed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The second paragraph currently reads:
The intellectual origins of the Revolution came from a global network of European and American 'patriots', who shared ideas and political principles, contacts accelerated by the American Revolution. Together, they marked the beginning of the Age of Revolution, which continued into the mid-19th century and impacted much of Europe and the Americas. However, the French quickly discarded the American Revolution as a reference point, and they are generally viewed as distinct events, with different causes.
Enter your statement to Keep or Delete the paragraph in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey.
You may engage in threaded discussion in the section for Threaded Discussion. (However, it is not necessary or useful to repeat the same arguments that have already been made that are still visible on this talk page.)
Do not change the structure of this RFC. The Survey will take place here, not anywhere else. The DRN has been failed because it was apparently confusing at least one editor. Just take part in the Survey right below here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The causes of the French Revolution are complex and are still debated among historians. Following the Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War,[5] the French government was deeply in debt. It attempted to restore its financial status through unpopular taxation schemes, which were heavily regressive. Leading up to the Revolution, years of bad harvests worsened by deregulation of the grain industry and environmental problems also inflamed popular resentment of the privileges enjoyed by the aristocracy and the Catholic clergy of the established church. Some historians hold something similar to what Thomas Jefferson proclaimed: that France had "been awakened by our [American] Revolution." 6 Demands for change were formulated in terms of Enlightenment ideals and contributed to the convocation of the Estates General in May 1789. During the first year of the Revolution, members of the Third Estate (commoners) took control, the Bastille was attacked in July, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was passed in August, and the Women's March on Versailles forced the royal court back to Paris in October. A central event of the first stage, in August 1789, was the abolition of feudalism and the old rules and privileges left over from the Ancien Régime.
Historians have ascribed many origins and causes to the French Revolution, but they do not always clarify the distinction between the two categories...
Among the political and ideological causes of the French Revolution, one might consider its foreign roots, a subject about which little, if anything, has been written...
As far I know, however, no historian has emphasized the intense interactions among international patriots in the years before 1789 or researched their impact on the French Revolution.Jourdan herself describes her focus on American influence as an obscure minority view; devoting an entire paragraph of the lead to it is absurdly WP:UNDUE. Mentioning it briefly in the body as one of many competing theories for one of the innumerable influences on the French Revolution makes sense; but stridently declaring it in a full paragraph of the lead gives the impression that there is some overwhelming scholarly consensus that this was the intellectual origin of the French revolution, which is emphatically not the case. Also note that the paragraph does not currently summarize any part of the lead - nothing in the body remotely supports its strident and weakly-sourced declaration that
the intellectual origins of the Revolution came from a global network of European and American 'patriots'. Again, it does not even accurately summarize Jourdan (who is careful to note that her view is obscure) - she is much more cautious and merely discusses American influence as one strand among many. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Let's keep in mind that per WP:RFC, it is not a vote at all; closure evaluation depends upon argumentation based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete It gives too much emphasis on what is ultimately not a universally accepted view amongst historians in the lede. The lede should summarize the article, and there isn't a comprehensive discussion of it in the article, so it should definitely be out of the lede. - Acebulf, 11:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
No one is advocating that there was no American influence whatsoever, or that the ARW was primarily the cause of the French Revolution. However, the ARW and American involvement did have a significant influence on the French Revolution, as it demonstrated to France, and the world, that throwing off a monarchy was not an unheard of and unobtainable goal, as I've explained. There are many sources, many by French scholars, that comprehensively cover the American involvement and its impact on the French revolutionary mindset. As such the article needs to better cover the American involvement before and during the French Revolution. This way, the statement in the lede will be better justified. With a little effort it's quite easy to find many sources that cover this idea. Below are three more.-- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The Americans were praised by the French during and after their revolution. The American constitutions were published and distributed across France. (See also, Mallet and Berstine, below.) The sentiment behind the ARW spilled over into France, as became evident in publications and newspapers across that country, and with the interchange between prominent French and American figures. There are simply too many facts, and sources, that exemplify the American involvement, and subsequent influence, for us to be brushing this off as being barely significant any longer. As was said several times, there's no need for lengthy coverage, but there is a need to briefly cover the events in question. This will make the lede statement more appropriate, which I hope is what we all want in terms of a well written and comprehensive article.-- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The 2-step procedure for Introduction innovations
Excerpts from reliable sources
|
---|
|
-- Gwillhickers ( talk) 04:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
two examples
|
---|
|
As the Rfc asks a binary question (keep/remove) a particular paragraph with specific content (listed in the Rfc statement itself above, and corresponding to paragraph 2 of the lede in revision 985758280 of 19:59, October 27, 2020) and that content has been changed, I suppose the Rfc is now moot, since all of the votes now correspond to something that doesn't exist anymore, and the Rfc should be closed? Adding User:Robert McClenon. I suppose one could attempt to alter the Rfc question to take changes into account, but that would also invalidate all votes to this point, so not sure where we go from here. This is basically the scenario I was afraid of, described at WP:DRN#French Revolution Two, in subsection WP:DRN#Summary of dispute by Mathglot, paragraph 4. Mathglot ( talk) 01:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The issue is not whether there was any American influence on the French Revolution, but whether it was so significant it warrants an entire paragraph of a Lede which is supposed to be no more than four.
This is English-language Wikipedia; many will be American, who have been taught a specific view. If we say nothing about the connection between the two events, we miss an opportunity; if we recycle popular or minority tropes, we're misleading them (my objection to the wording inserted on 28 May). So we have to say something.
references & sources copy-pasted from Article
|
---|
|
That’s my two cents. I anticipate additional edits on the contribution. But I’ll await the next Request for Comment to respond further. - TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 21:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
The Intro now reads like this, in revision [[Special:Permalink/986279433|986279433]].
", which will generate: The Intro now reads like this, in revision
986279433. Also, part of your change was to alter the lead content which is the matter under discussion in the Rfc in the previous section, which you participated in. So what's up with that?
Mathglot (
talk) 01:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
"The new paragraphs made by Robinvp11 supercede the gain made by moving."
What's up with that?
"alter the lead content". (a) It places a detail into a Note of interest in American history, adjacent to a larger point about the Atlantic community as it relates to the French Revolution in that article's Introduction. (b) The Talk presentation highlights the non-compliant Schapentolk-1996 reference without a HarvRef in the 'Sources' section.
What's up with that?
To further dispel the notion that a significant American involvement and influence is mostly an American POV and/or a "minority view", a quote from yet another noted French historian, François Mignet, is presented below, which definitively and clearly outlines the idea that American involvement was a significant factor during the years before and during the French Revolution. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 01:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
To further exemplify the French-American connection, Link, Eugene Perry, writes:
-- Gwillhickers ( talk) 04:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, You once mentioned that an RFC was going to run for 30 days. There's nothing to indicate here in Talk that the RFC was closed, while one editor, Robinvp11, went ahead and removed the sentence in question. The edit history for that edit reads:
This is exactly what has occurred, as one of the sentences from the former 2nd paragraph (i.e. "Between 1700 and 1789, the French population increased ...") still remains. Another editor recently said:
The only "argumentation" put forth for removing the sentence in question were empty claims about due weight, largely based on what some encyclopedias didn't say, with no actual "argumentation" to support its removal. Not one scholarly source was presented that outlined why such a statement wasn't significant enough for the lede. Meanwhile dozens of French and other scholars were presented supporting the idea, but were categorically ignored by some editors. Isn't consensus supposed to be based on principles? None were presented. Due weight is supposed to be established by considering the facts in question and by the number of sources that cover them, not by a raw vote.
More than enough notable sources were presented to establish weight for the American involvement. Thus far what we have is a rushed consensus that goes against WP policy. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The RFC is still running, and should run until 27 November, at which time a bot will guillotine it, and then an autopsy can be performed. It appears that we are in agreement that the RFC is still running and will run until 27 November. It should more generally cover whether there should be a paragraph similar to the paragraph in question, about American influence, in the lede.
I have posted a note to WP:AN requesting administrative attention, but no specific action. If there are any other content issues, we can resolve them with more RFCs. RFCs run for 30 days unless withdrawn. Is that understood? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Robin, let's be reminded that I'm not the one who initiated this issue. The discussion goes on mostly because some editors refuse to even acknowledge that there are many notable sources, including several well noted French scholars, who have covered the American involvement involving significant events and have established weight. I've mentioned that French notables fully inspired by the ARW returned to France with the idea of civil liberties and revolution in their minds. -- No comment. It was pointed out that Jefferson and Lafayette were involved drafting the French Declaration, along with organizing the National Assembly. -- No comment. It was mentioned that the influential Franklin was widely admired by the French and worked along side notable French revolutionary writers like comte de Mirabeau. -- No comment. It was mentioned that the U.S. Declaration and various US Constitutions were widely published across France. -- No comment. It was mentioned that U.S. newspapers followed and lent political and social support for the French revolution. -- No comment. It was mentioned that American revolutionary thought was published in journals across France. -- No comment. It was also mentioned that these things are not exclusively an American POV as was first asserted. -- No comment. I've listed dozens of sources for editors to evaluate in this so called discussion and all I've gotten in return, overall, are empty claims about Due-weight, with no comments on the excerpts I've provided. Not one. Since you've mentioned that my contributions are among the largest, now you have a comprehensive reason as to why. This RFC by and large has ignored virtually all points of contention and is little more than a forum to cast a raw vote. All I've seen in terms of opposing arguments are comments about what a few encyclopedias didn't say and unsubstantiated claims about Due-Weight, in the face of all those sources. Robert McClenon was right to initiate another discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard. Maybe this time the same editors will not shy away from the points that have been outlined here and offer some arguments based on what reliable sources 'do' say. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 23:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Gwillhickers said above,
This RFC by and large has ignored virtually all points of contention and is little more than a forum to cast a raw vote.
Perhaps you are right after all. With nine editors responding as of this date, and all of them ignoring the points of contention as if by some nefarious (even prearranged?) purpose, I can think of only one possible explanation. It must be the CABAL. Mathglot ( talk) 03:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Below is more definitive coverage about the American influence by yet another noted French historian, Georges Lefebvre.
The first sentence in the above excerpt clearly makes the comparison between the two declarations, in relation to the National Assembly. That's a very definitive and telling example, the tip of a very large ice-berge if you will. You seem to be trying to suggest that there was no American influence involved anywhere else. The French Declaration, like the American Declaration, were the driving social and political forces behind both revolutions. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I will continue to be
adding facts and sources for consideration as I find them, but as said, the debate for me is over. All that is asked is that policy be observed. —
WP: Due-Weight: "In determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." (emphasis added) --
Gwillhickers (
talk) 01:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
As there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel trying to get editors to reconsider an inclusion for a lede statement on American involvement, I believe it's time for me to bow out of the debate. I truly felt that if enough events and notable sources were presented that this might convince some editors that the American Revolution was significant enough, and not just an "Americano-centric claim", to mention with one statement in the lede. In any case, I appreciate that some editors are willing to better cover these things in the body of the text. As I've said before, I have no desire to see a new section or paragraphs covering the American involvement prior to and during the Revolution. Keep well. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Pldx1 — Thank you for your opinions about "experiments" and "anecedote". As I've said, I've bowed out of the debate over inclusion of the lede statement in question. Most likely it will be removed, regardless if the lede is twice as small, or twice as large. This is about the lede as a whole. I don't see the lede as being too long, given the size of this high-traffic and major subject article, which involves many topics that are lede worthy. Compare the ledes in other major subject articles such as Napoleon, Battle of Waterloo, Napoleonic Wars, American Civil War, American Revolutionary War, French Revolutionary Wars, etc. The length of this lede is smaller proportionately and is nothing unusual. I am opposed to arriving at the article length, and lede length, by using math. Good writing involves comprehensive coverage and leaves out no major details and presents the subject in context. If there are, for example, 20 major topics in the article, we should have 20 summery statements in the lede. We don't trim the lede simply because someone feels it's too long. Given that many (most?) readers only read the lede, and perhaps one or two sections of interest, it's important that the lede gives them something more than a minimalized stack of sentences. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)