![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
“Opposition from external powers like Austria, Britain, and Prussia resulted in the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars in April 1792.”
In the article, however, it is Brissot who is held responsible for the war:
“...a campaign for war against Austria and Prussia, also led by Brissot, whose aims have been interpreted as a mixture of cynical calculation and revolutionary idealism. While exploiting popular anti-Austrianism, it reflected a genuine belief in exporting the values of political liberty and popular sovereignty.”
That doesn’t seem very coherent to me. Wordyhs ( talk) 14:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The following passage in the article : "While often suggested the nobility and clergy were largely exempt, more recent work argues the tax burden was shared more equally than previously understood, but weaknesses in their assessment and collection were a disaster" is backed up by only one specific reference. As I found the claim of an equally shared tax burden literally unbelievable, I read the source and I do not think we can keep this sentence as it is for the following reasons:
My question is, should we just do a rewrite of this sentence, a removal of this sentence, or a rewrite of the paragraph that it is in? Eleventh1 ( talk) 20:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
dates for the topic im studing are wrong! Ghjrtyfhg ( talk) 01:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
from the section of the french revolutionary wars, this line has a broken link "Leading soldiers like Hoche, Pichegru and Carnot wielded significant political influence and often set policy; Campo Formio was approved by Bonaparte, not the Directory, which strongly objected to terms it considered too lenient." the camp formio link takes u to the town in italy, not the Treaty of campo formio, which is clearly what is meant to be linked here Advt123 ( talk) 01:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please I want to change the first sentence of the page as it is wrong. KS 140 ( talk) 09:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello all,
I have edited the section on historiography, including more sources and more discussion of recent historiography. I have removed the sub-heading "Biases in the historiography of the French Revolution" and rewritten some of its contents. In its original form it wasn’t supported by proper citations and was in the form of an argumentative essay pushing a particular point of view rather than a balanced summary of recent writings on the historiography of the revolution. There were also a couple of paragraphs which were about the long-term impacts of the revolution, rather than historiography. I have moved some of this to the section on “Long-term impact”. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 04:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello all
I have added some information which was in the Historiography section but is more relevant in the lead-in paragraph here. I have also replaced some information in the lead-in paragraph about the Long-term impact on France. The previous lead-in sentences included a bizarre sentence about Louis XIV, but were mainly about short-term changes which were largely undone by Napoleon and the restoration. I think the sentences I moved here better reflect some of the long term impacts of the revolution on France. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 04:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello all
I have significantly expanded this section to reflect its increased importance in recent scholarship on the French revolution. I have changed the heading title to better reflect the contents. I have added proper citations. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 04:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
The following paragraph, which has existed in section § Creating a new constitution in various versions since October 2020, was removed in this edit on 6 April 2023:
Paragraph from section
§ Creating a new constitution
| ||
---|---|---|
More importantly, the two differed in intent; Jefferson saw the US Constitution and Bill of Rights as fixing the political system at a specific point in time, claiming they 'contained no original thought...but expressed the American mind' at that stage. [1] The 1791 French Constitution was viewed as a starting point, the Declaration providing an aspirational vision, a key difference between the two Revolutions. Attached as a preamble to the French Constitution of 1791, and that of the 1870 to 1940 French Third Republic, it was incorporated into the current Constitution of France in 1958. [2]
|
This paragraph was added by Robinvp11 ( talk · contribs) in rev. 984194581 of 19:12, 18 Oct 2020, with various small wording changes to the paragraph by several editors since.
The paragraph was removed by 021120x ( talk · contribs) in rev. 1148418528 of 6 April 2023, with the summary:
Discuss.
P.S. One concern I have, is accessibility to reference Fremont-Barnes (2007); if someone could paste the relevant content from page 190 below, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 00:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
|quote=
param in the ref in the paragraph. If the quotation only applies to that one paragraph and not to other uses of Fremont-Barnes in the article, then instead of adding |quote=
to the ref, append a {{
rp}} template after the ref in that one case, and include the |q=
param; see
Template:Rp#With a quote.
Mathglot (
talk)
20:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Request to remove the phrase stating that Robespierre was the Committee of Public Safety's head. There was no such position on the committee and Robespierre held no special powers or privileges. This statement is misleading and serves to paint Robespierre as some kind of sole executive leader, a myth that is false and harmful to understanding the revolution, as well as being based in right-wing propaganda. CherryPigeon ( talk) 21:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in the crisis part remove thanks to tangqo DecentInnocentttt ( talk) 06:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
In the "Creating a new constituion" subsection, fourth paragraph, there's this passage:
On 5 October 1789, crowds of women... marched on Versailles, where they entered the Assembly to present their demands. They were followed by 15,000 members of the National Guard under Lafayette, who tried to dissuade them, but took command when it became clear they would desert if he did not grant their request. When the National Guard arrived later that evening...
Cannot figure out what this even means. The National Guard followed the marchers, or they arrived later that evening? The National Guard was led by Layfayette, but he took command later? Who is the "they" who would desert? The Guard? If so, what was their request? Or the mob, undissuaded, what was their request, and how was Layfayette in a position to grant?
Not familiar enough with the subject to sort this out, maybe someone can. Herostratus ( talk) 05:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to correct France's population, the french population in 1700 was 21 million, not 18 million and in 1789 was 28 million, not 26 million. Fancyfactfull ( talk) 17:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Very biased anti-jacobin page. Federalism was destroyed to bring the individual closer to the state, and thus to humanity. Not to assure French supremacy, as it is subtexted here. 90.62.27.69 ( talk) 00:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello all
An editor recently added this sub-section to the Historiography Section. I have removed it because:
1) It is original research advocating a particular interpretation of the historiography of the revolution. WP:OR
2) Except for one sentence, there are no citations. WP:CITE
3) The only citation appears to be a self-published article by an anonymous author. WP:RELIABLE
4) It mostly repeats information already covered with reliable sources in the Historiography section.
@ Wordyhs Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 02:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
A major aspect of the historiography of the French Revolution is the ‘silencing’ of the Haitian Revolution and the imperialist dimension of the French Revolution.
On the ‘silencing’ of the Haitian Revolution, Michel-Rolph Trouillot wrote Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History.
In Tropics of Haiti, Marlene Daut wrote: “It is by now rather commonplace in academic circles to refer to the idea that the Haitian Revolution has been ‘silenced’ for the past two centuries in both scholarship and popular history.”
She also wrote, in a 2021 article published in the New York Times, “Napoleon Isn’t a Hero to Celebrate”:
“...the French education system, which I taught in from 2002 to 2003, encourages the belief that France is a colorblind country with an “emancipatory history.” When French schools do teach colonial history, they routinely tout that the country was the first of the European world powers to abolish slavery.”
I can see that in the Lead and elsewhere, the same concealment of the Haitian Revolution and of the imperialist dimension of the French Revolution occurs.
For instance, in “Role of ideology”, “French Revolutionary Wars” and “Historiography”. Wordyhs ( talk) 10:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I must repeat myself, the Haitian Revolution and the Imperialism of the French Revolution are silenced in the lead and elsewhere, for example, in "Role of Ideology", "French Revolution Wars," and "Historiography", and they are precisely silenced by Robinvp11 for the lead and by Aemilius Adolphin for "Role of Ideology" and "Historiography". Wordyhs ( talk) 08:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Nowhere can you silence the Haitian Revolution and the imperialism of the French Revolution, neither in the lead, nor in "Role of ideology," nor in "French Revolution Wars," nor in "Historiography." The concealment of the Haitian Revolution and the imperialism of the French Revolution is a French POV.
On “Wikipedia:Neutral point of view” it says: “NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies... [...] This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.”
Silencing the Haitian Revolution and the imperialism of the French Revolution in the lead, in "Role of Ideology", in "French Revolution Wars," and in "Historiography" is to impose a French POV in these sections, and it is contrary to a “fundamental principle of Wikipedia”. Wordyhs ( talk) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The article is made up of sections. You can’t have one section (“Slavery and the colonies”) that says one thing, and others (the lead, "Role of Ideology", "French Revolution Wars," and "Historiography") that says the opposite (implicitly, by silencing what you want to.)
Most visitors only read the lead and will not hear of the Haitian Revolution and the imperialist dimension of the French Revolution. They are going to ignore it, and that is what you, Robinvp11 and Aemilius Adolphin want.
There can be no “editor consensus” against a Neutral point of view.
History should not be the POV of the stronger (the French) against the weaker (The Haitians).
But, so far that is the case.
What Marlene Daut wrote for the past continues to be true: “the Haitian Revolution has been ‘silenced’ for the past two centuries in both scholarship and popular history.”
This continues to be true because the stronger (the French) and the weaker (The Haitians) remain the same, and in history, the stronger imposes its POV, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, since it is their interest to do so. Wordyhs ( talk) 13:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I also raised the issue in Talk:Haitian_Revolution ("Silencing the Haitian Revolution") and was well received.
So I wrote this in the article: “The Haitian Revolution has been and continues to be obscured (“silenced”) in the historiography of the French Revolution and elsewhere.”
It was edited by Remsense like this (and I accept the edit): “Compared to other Atlantic revolutions, the events in Haiti have received comparatively little public attention in retrospect: historian Michel-Rolph Trouillot characterizes the historiography of the Haitian Revolution as being "silenced" by that of the French Revolution.”
(Trouillot is not the only one to have said this, though, all historians of the Haitian Revolution agree on it.)
I mentioned the fact that I have been “silenced” here. Remsense read what I wrote here and made this comment: “But I've read everything you wrote there, they clearly didn't do a very good job.”
So, I'm not the only one who thinks what I think. In fact, anyone interested in the Haitian Revolution, Black history, and French imperialism will agree with me. Wordyhs ( talk) 11:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
It says in the lead:
“Attempts to restore the Ancien Régime by external powers including Austria, Britain and Prussia resulted in the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars in April 1792.”
It's not true. Neither Austria, nor Great Britain, nor Prussia wanted to restore the Ancien Régime.
It was the French who declared war on Austria, with the aim of conquering Belgium and the Pays de Liège. They invented the ideology of "natural borders" to legitimize their expansion in Europe. It was therefore an imperialist ideology, which is not mentioned in "Role of Ideology". Wordyhs ( talk) 13:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
In April 1792, France was also a monarchical imperial power and was still allied with Austria.
By 1792, Austria, Great Britain and Prussia were satisfied with the new regime. Austria and Prussia supported Louis XVI and the new monarchy, not the émigrés who wanted to restore the Ancien Régime.
What Robinvp11 said in (c) is right, but incomplete.
Dumouriez, who was Minister of Foreign Affairs, wanted the war to liberate Belgium from the Austrians. When he became general, he succeeded in liberating Belgium and the Pays de Liège, but then the Jacobins and Girondins chose to annex both countries, against the will of the Belgians (who had already made a revolution against the Austrians to liberate themselves, not to be annexed by the French). It was therefore a colonial (or imperial) conquest imposed by force.
With the exception of the Pays de Liège, all the countries conquered after April 1792 were hostile to the French.
Great Britain did not enter the war until 1793, after and because of the annexation of Belgium and the Pays de Liège. Wordyhs ( talk) 13:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello all
It looks like all the citations in this article need checking. I checked all the sources for this and found that most of the content was unsourced or had nothing to do with the cited sources. In some cases the content was accurately sourced, but the sources were 40 to 70 years old and didn't reflect recent scholarship. I have replaced most of the content with more accurate content based on recent scholarship. I have also changed the heading to better reflect the new content and to emphasis that the financial crisis quickly became a full-scale political crisis for the monarchy. I have made some cuts to detail and repetitive information so that the changes don't increase the word length of the article. I have mainly relied on The Oxford Handook of the French Revolution (2018), A Companion to the French Revolution (2013) and the Oxford History of the French Revolution (2018). I have also used Scharma (1989) and Cobban (1965) to a limited extent. As this is another significant re-write I would be happy to discuss any objections you might have to the changed content, and suggestions for changes in wording. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 04:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
It says in the lead:
"The French Revolution was a period of political and societal change in France that began with the Estates General of 1789, and ended with the formation of the French Consulate in November 1799. Many of its ideas are considered fundamental principles of liberal democracy, while its values and institutions remain central to modern French political discourse."
Did the change only take place in France? Was it in the French metropolis or in the French Empire?
What are these "ideas", "values" and "institutions"? Where are they explained?
What about Terror, imperialism, nationalism? Are these "fundamental principles of liberal democracy"?
The French Revolution is central to the Marxist narrative, and therefore to the "Marxist democracies", considered dictatorships from the point of view of "liberal democracy".
What is "French political discourse"? Where is it defined on Wikipedia? Wordyhs ( talk) 11:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello all
I checked all the sources for this and found that most of the content was unsourced or had nothing to do with the cited sources. Some of it is also contradicted by the most recent scholarly research. I have replaced most of the content with more accurate content based on recent scholarship. I have mainly relied on The Oxford Handook of the French Revolution (2015) and A Companion to the French Revolution (2013). As this is a significant re-write I would be happy to discuss any objections you might have to the changed content, and suggestions for changes in wording. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 04:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
References
Hello all
Once again, I checked all the sources for this and found that most of the content was unsourced or had nothing to do with the cited sources or were old and didn't reflect recent scholarship. I have replaced most of the content with more accurate content based on recent scholarship. I have moved some content to the section on Financial and political crisis in order to make the sequence of events and reasons for the growing crisis clearer. I have made some cuts to detail and repetitive information so that the changes don't increase the word length of the article. I have mainly relied on The Oxford Handook of the French Revolution (2018), A Companion to the French Revolution (2013) and the Oxford History of the French Revolution (2018). I have also used Schama (1989) and Cobban (1965) to a limited extent. As always, I would be happy to discuss any objections you might have to the changed content, and suggestions for changes in wording. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 04:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
References
This is written now on the Wikipedia page:
"Some studies assert that Wikipedia (and in particular the English Wikipedia) has a "western cultural bias", "pro-western bias", or "Eurocentric bias", reiterating, says Anna Samoilenko, "similar biases that are found in the 'ivory tower' of academic historiography". Due to this persistent Eurocentrism, scholars like Carwil Bjork-James or the authors of 'The colonization of Wikipedia: evidence from characteristic editing behaviors of warring camps' call for a “decolonization” of Wikipedia."
This Eurocentric bias is also the one that postcolonial studies finds in Western history (Art. ‘Eurocentrism’ in Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Postcolonial Studies: The Key Concepts), a bias that J. M. Blaut labeled in a title of a book as the “colonizer’s model of the world” (The Colonizer’s Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History).
In particular, Eurocentrism has been noted in the historiography of the French Revolution. Robert R. Palmer's conception of Western history, for example, with the American and French Revolutions presented as the two most important events leading to modernity, has been considered by David Armitage to be “guilty of almost every current scholarly sin—Eurocentrism, essentialism, teleology, diffusionism...” (Foreword to The Age of the Democratic Revolution)
Armitage noted the “omission of the Haitian revolution” in this book, an omission that was general until recently in the historiography of the French Revolution, wrote Marlene Daut, in Tropics of Haiti: “It is by now rather commonplace in academic circles to refer to the idea that the Haitian Revolution has been ‘silenced’ for the past two centuries in both scholarship and popular history.”
In Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History, Michel-Rolph Trouillot described this omission as “a chapter within a narrative of global domination”, thus as Eurocentrism:
“The silencing of the Haitian Revolution is only a chapter within a narrative of global domination. It is part of the history of the West and it is likely to persist, even in attenuated forms, as long as the history of the West is not retold in ways that bring forward the perspective of the world.”
According to Trouillot, the silencing of the Haitian Revolution is consistent with the desire to obscure three themes related to it: racism, slavery and colonialism:
“Finally, the silencing of the Haitian Revolution also fit the relegation to an historical backburner of the three themes to which it was linked: racism, slavery, and colonialism. In spite of their importance in the formation of what we now call the West, in spite of sudden outbursts of interest as in the United States in the early 1970s, none of these themes has ever become a central concern of the historiographic tradition in a Western country. In fact, each of them, in turn, experienced repeated periods of silence of unequal duration and intensity in Spain, France, Britain, Portugal, The Netherlands, and the United States. The less colonialism and racism seem important in world history, the less important also the Haitian Revolution.” Wordyhs ( talk) 14:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
The compulsory guilds, made compulsory by King Henry IV, were producer cartels - to refer to them as "worker representation" is utterly absurd. There had been an effort to end these compulsory cartels in 1776, by Turgot, but that effort had failed because of the fatal weakness of King Louis XVI. The French Revolutionaries, in the Estates General, proclaimed the end of the compulsory guilds on August the 4th 1789 - but such words were not given legal effect till 1791. 2A02:C7C:E183:AC00:5405:9838:B7F6:9189 ( talk) 13:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The majority of scholars today argue that the French Revolution did NOT contribute to the development of democracy in Europe, while this article argues the opposite, citing a single contribution, Livesey 2001, which is more than 20 years old and does not represent the standard of current scholarship. Deeply unbalanced and in need of revision. 86.6.148.125 ( talk) 15:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
“Opposition from external powers like Austria, Britain, and Prussia resulted in the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars in April 1792.”
In the article, however, it is Brissot who is held responsible for the war:
“...a campaign for war against Austria and Prussia, also led by Brissot, whose aims have been interpreted as a mixture of cynical calculation and revolutionary idealism. While exploiting popular anti-Austrianism, it reflected a genuine belief in exporting the values of political liberty and popular sovereignty.”
That doesn’t seem very coherent to me. Wordyhs ( talk) 14:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The following passage in the article : "While often suggested the nobility and clergy were largely exempt, more recent work argues the tax burden was shared more equally than previously understood, but weaknesses in their assessment and collection were a disaster" is backed up by only one specific reference. As I found the claim of an equally shared tax burden literally unbelievable, I read the source and I do not think we can keep this sentence as it is for the following reasons:
My question is, should we just do a rewrite of this sentence, a removal of this sentence, or a rewrite of the paragraph that it is in? Eleventh1 ( talk) 20:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
dates for the topic im studing are wrong! Ghjrtyfhg ( talk) 01:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
from the section of the french revolutionary wars, this line has a broken link "Leading soldiers like Hoche, Pichegru and Carnot wielded significant political influence and often set policy; Campo Formio was approved by Bonaparte, not the Directory, which strongly objected to terms it considered too lenient." the camp formio link takes u to the town in italy, not the Treaty of campo formio, which is clearly what is meant to be linked here Advt123 ( talk) 01:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please I want to change the first sentence of the page as it is wrong. KS 140 ( talk) 09:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello all,
I have edited the section on historiography, including more sources and more discussion of recent historiography. I have removed the sub-heading "Biases in the historiography of the French Revolution" and rewritten some of its contents. In its original form it wasn’t supported by proper citations and was in the form of an argumentative essay pushing a particular point of view rather than a balanced summary of recent writings on the historiography of the revolution. There were also a couple of paragraphs which were about the long-term impacts of the revolution, rather than historiography. I have moved some of this to the section on “Long-term impact”. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 04:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello all
I have added some information which was in the Historiography section but is more relevant in the lead-in paragraph here. I have also replaced some information in the lead-in paragraph about the Long-term impact on France. The previous lead-in sentences included a bizarre sentence about Louis XIV, but were mainly about short-term changes which were largely undone by Napoleon and the restoration. I think the sentences I moved here better reflect some of the long term impacts of the revolution on France. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 04:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello all
I have significantly expanded this section to reflect its increased importance in recent scholarship on the French revolution. I have changed the heading title to better reflect the contents. I have added proper citations. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 04:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
The following paragraph, which has existed in section § Creating a new constitution in various versions since October 2020, was removed in this edit on 6 April 2023:
Paragraph from section
§ Creating a new constitution
| ||
---|---|---|
More importantly, the two differed in intent; Jefferson saw the US Constitution and Bill of Rights as fixing the political system at a specific point in time, claiming they 'contained no original thought...but expressed the American mind' at that stage. [1] The 1791 French Constitution was viewed as a starting point, the Declaration providing an aspirational vision, a key difference between the two Revolutions. Attached as a preamble to the French Constitution of 1791, and that of the 1870 to 1940 French Third Republic, it was incorporated into the current Constitution of France in 1958. [2]
|
This paragraph was added by Robinvp11 ( talk · contribs) in rev. 984194581 of 19:12, 18 Oct 2020, with various small wording changes to the paragraph by several editors since.
The paragraph was removed by 021120x ( talk · contribs) in rev. 1148418528 of 6 April 2023, with the summary:
Discuss.
P.S. One concern I have, is accessibility to reference Fremont-Barnes (2007); if someone could paste the relevant content from page 190 below, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 00:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
|quote=
param in the ref in the paragraph. If the quotation only applies to that one paragraph and not to other uses of Fremont-Barnes in the article, then instead of adding |quote=
to the ref, append a {{
rp}} template after the ref in that one case, and include the |q=
param; see
Template:Rp#With a quote.
Mathglot (
talk)
20:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Request to remove the phrase stating that Robespierre was the Committee of Public Safety's head. There was no such position on the committee and Robespierre held no special powers or privileges. This statement is misleading and serves to paint Robespierre as some kind of sole executive leader, a myth that is false and harmful to understanding the revolution, as well as being based in right-wing propaganda. CherryPigeon ( talk) 21:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in the crisis part remove thanks to tangqo DecentInnocentttt ( talk) 06:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
In the "Creating a new constituion" subsection, fourth paragraph, there's this passage:
On 5 October 1789, crowds of women... marched on Versailles, where they entered the Assembly to present their demands. They were followed by 15,000 members of the National Guard under Lafayette, who tried to dissuade them, but took command when it became clear they would desert if he did not grant their request. When the National Guard arrived later that evening...
Cannot figure out what this even means. The National Guard followed the marchers, or they arrived later that evening? The National Guard was led by Layfayette, but he took command later? Who is the "they" who would desert? The Guard? If so, what was their request? Or the mob, undissuaded, what was their request, and how was Layfayette in a position to grant?
Not familiar enough with the subject to sort this out, maybe someone can. Herostratus ( talk) 05:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to correct France's population, the french population in 1700 was 21 million, not 18 million and in 1789 was 28 million, not 26 million. Fancyfactfull ( talk) 17:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
French Revolution has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Very biased anti-jacobin page. Federalism was destroyed to bring the individual closer to the state, and thus to humanity. Not to assure French supremacy, as it is subtexted here. 90.62.27.69 ( talk) 00:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello all
An editor recently added this sub-section to the Historiography Section. I have removed it because:
1) It is original research advocating a particular interpretation of the historiography of the revolution. WP:OR
2) Except for one sentence, there are no citations. WP:CITE
3) The only citation appears to be a self-published article by an anonymous author. WP:RELIABLE
4) It mostly repeats information already covered with reliable sources in the Historiography section.
@ Wordyhs Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 02:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
A major aspect of the historiography of the French Revolution is the ‘silencing’ of the Haitian Revolution and the imperialist dimension of the French Revolution.
On the ‘silencing’ of the Haitian Revolution, Michel-Rolph Trouillot wrote Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History.
In Tropics of Haiti, Marlene Daut wrote: “It is by now rather commonplace in academic circles to refer to the idea that the Haitian Revolution has been ‘silenced’ for the past two centuries in both scholarship and popular history.”
She also wrote, in a 2021 article published in the New York Times, “Napoleon Isn’t a Hero to Celebrate”:
“...the French education system, which I taught in from 2002 to 2003, encourages the belief that France is a colorblind country with an “emancipatory history.” When French schools do teach colonial history, they routinely tout that the country was the first of the European world powers to abolish slavery.”
I can see that in the Lead and elsewhere, the same concealment of the Haitian Revolution and of the imperialist dimension of the French Revolution occurs.
For instance, in “Role of ideology”, “French Revolutionary Wars” and “Historiography”. Wordyhs ( talk) 10:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I must repeat myself, the Haitian Revolution and the Imperialism of the French Revolution are silenced in the lead and elsewhere, for example, in "Role of Ideology", "French Revolution Wars," and "Historiography", and they are precisely silenced by Robinvp11 for the lead and by Aemilius Adolphin for "Role of Ideology" and "Historiography". Wordyhs ( talk) 08:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Nowhere can you silence the Haitian Revolution and the imperialism of the French Revolution, neither in the lead, nor in "Role of ideology," nor in "French Revolution Wars," nor in "Historiography." The concealment of the Haitian Revolution and the imperialism of the French Revolution is a French POV.
On “Wikipedia:Neutral point of view” it says: “NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies... [...] This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.”
Silencing the Haitian Revolution and the imperialism of the French Revolution in the lead, in "Role of Ideology", in "French Revolution Wars," and in "Historiography" is to impose a French POV in these sections, and it is contrary to a “fundamental principle of Wikipedia”. Wordyhs ( talk) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The article is made up of sections. You can’t have one section (“Slavery and the colonies”) that says one thing, and others (the lead, "Role of Ideology", "French Revolution Wars," and "Historiography") that says the opposite (implicitly, by silencing what you want to.)
Most visitors only read the lead and will not hear of the Haitian Revolution and the imperialist dimension of the French Revolution. They are going to ignore it, and that is what you, Robinvp11 and Aemilius Adolphin want.
There can be no “editor consensus” against a Neutral point of view.
History should not be the POV of the stronger (the French) against the weaker (The Haitians).
But, so far that is the case.
What Marlene Daut wrote for the past continues to be true: “the Haitian Revolution has been ‘silenced’ for the past two centuries in both scholarship and popular history.”
This continues to be true because the stronger (the French) and the weaker (The Haitians) remain the same, and in history, the stronger imposes its POV, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, since it is their interest to do so. Wordyhs ( talk) 13:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I also raised the issue in Talk:Haitian_Revolution ("Silencing the Haitian Revolution") and was well received.
So I wrote this in the article: “The Haitian Revolution has been and continues to be obscured (“silenced”) in the historiography of the French Revolution and elsewhere.”
It was edited by Remsense like this (and I accept the edit): “Compared to other Atlantic revolutions, the events in Haiti have received comparatively little public attention in retrospect: historian Michel-Rolph Trouillot characterizes the historiography of the Haitian Revolution as being "silenced" by that of the French Revolution.”
(Trouillot is not the only one to have said this, though, all historians of the Haitian Revolution agree on it.)
I mentioned the fact that I have been “silenced” here. Remsense read what I wrote here and made this comment: “But I've read everything you wrote there, they clearly didn't do a very good job.”
So, I'm not the only one who thinks what I think. In fact, anyone interested in the Haitian Revolution, Black history, and French imperialism will agree with me. Wordyhs ( talk) 11:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
It says in the lead:
“Attempts to restore the Ancien Régime by external powers including Austria, Britain and Prussia resulted in the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars in April 1792.”
It's not true. Neither Austria, nor Great Britain, nor Prussia wanted to restore the Ancien Régime.
It was the French who declared war on Austria, with the aim of conquering Belgium and the Pays de Liège. They invented the ideology of "natural borders" to legitimize their expansion in Europe. It was therefore an imperialist ideology, which is not mentioned in "Role of Ideology". Wordyhs ( talk) 13:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
In April 1792, France was also a monarchical imperial power and was still allied with Austria.
By 1792, Austria, Great Britain and Prussia were satisfied with the new regime. Austria and Prussia supported Louis XVI and the new monarchy, not the émigrés who wanted to restore the Ancien Régime.
What Robinvp11 said in (c) is right, but incomplete.
Dumouriez, who was Minister of Foreign Affairs, wanted the war to liberate Belgium from the Austrians. When he became general, he succeeded in liberating Belgium and the Pays de Liège, but then the Jacobins and Girondins chose to annex both countries, against the will of the Belgians (who had already made a revolution against the Austrians to liberate themselves, not to be annexed by the French). It was therefore a colonial (or imperial) conquest imposed by force.
With the exception of the Pays de Liège, all the countries conquered after April 1792 were hostile to the French.
Great Britain did not enter the war until 1793, after and because of the annexation of Belgium and the Pays de Liège. Wordyhs ( talk) 13:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello all
It looks like all the citations in this article need checking. I checked all the sources for this and found that most of the content was unsourced or had nothing to do with the cited sources. In some cases the content was accurately sourced, but the sources were 40 to 70 years old and didn't reflect recent scholarship. I have replaced most of the content with more accurate content based on recent scholarship. I have also changed the heading to better reflect the new content and to emphasis that the financial crisis quickly became a full-scale political crisis for the monarchy. I have made some cuts to detail and repetitive information so that the changes don't increase the word length of the article. I have mainly relied on The Oxford Handook of the French Revolution (2018), A Companion to the French Revolution (2013) and the Oxford History of the French Revolution (2018). I have also used Scharma (1989) and Cobban (1965) to a limited extent. As this is another significant re-write I would be happy to discuss any objections you might have to the changed content, and suggestions for changes in wording. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 04:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
It says in the lead:
"The French Revolution was a period of political and societal change in France that began with the Estates General of 1789, and ended with the formation of the French Consulate in November 1799. Many of its ideas are considered fundamental principles of liberal democracy, while its values and institutions remain central to modern French political discourse."
Did the change only take place in France? Was it in the French metropolis or in the French Empire?
What are these "ideas", "values" and "institutions"? Where are they explained?
What about Terror, imperialism, nationalism? Are these "fundamental principles of liberal democracy"?
The French Revolution is central to the Marxist narrative, and therefore to the "Marxist democracies", considered dictatorships from the point of view of "liberal democracy".
What is "French political discourse"? Where is it defined on Wikipedia? Wordyhs ( talk) 11:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello all
I checked all the sources for this and found that most of the content was unsourced or had nothing to do with the cited sources. Some of it is also contradicted by the most recent scholarly research. I have replaced most of the content with more accurate content based on recent scholarship. I have mainly relied on The Oxford Handook of the French Revolution (2015) and A Companion to the French Revolution (2013). As this is a significant re-write I would be happy to discuss any objections you might have to the changed content, and suggestions for changes in wording. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 04:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
References
Hello all
Once again, I checked all the sources for this and found that most of the content was unsourced or had nothing to do with the cited sources or were old and didn't reflect recent scholarship. I have replaced most of the content with more accurate content based on recent scholarship. I have moved some content to the section on Financial and political crisis in order to make the sequence of events and reasons for the growing crisis clearer. I have made some cuts to detail and repetitive information so that the changes don't increase the word length of the article. I have mainly relied on The Oxford Handook of the French Revolution (2018), A Companion to the French Revolution (2013) and the Oxford History of the French Revolution (2018). I have also used Schama (1989) and Cobban (1965) to a limited extent. As always, I would be happy to discuss any objections you might have to the changed content, and suggestions for changes in wording. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 04:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
References
This is written now on the Wikipedia page:
"Some studies assert that Wikipedia (and in particular the English Wikipedia) has a "western cultural bias", "pro-western bias", or "Eurocentric bias", reiterating, says Anna Samoilenko, "similar biases that are found in the 'ivory tower' of academic historiography". Due to this persistent Eurocentrism, scholars like Carwil Bjork-James or the authors of 'The colonization of Wikipedia: evidence from characteristic editing behaviors of warring camps' call for a “decolonization” of Wikipedia."
This Eurocentric bias is also the one that postcolonial studies finds in Western history (Art. ‘Eurocentrism’ in Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, Postcolonial Studies: The Key Concepts), a bias that J. M. Blaut labeled in a title of a book as the “colonizer’s model of the world” (The Colonizer’s Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History).
In particular, Eurocentrism has been noted in the historiography of the French Revolution. Robert R. Palmer's conception of Western history, for example, with the American and French Revolutions presented as the two most important events leading to modernity, has been considered by David Armitage to be “guilty of almost every current scholarly sin—Eurocentrism, essentialism, teleology, diffusionism...” (Foreword to The Age of the Democratic Revolution)
Armitage noted the “omission of the Haitian revolution” in this book, an omission that was general until recently in the historiography of the French Revolution, wrote Marlene Daut, in Tropics of Haiti: “It is by now rather commonplace in academic circles to refer to the idea that the Haitian Revolution has been ‘silenced’ for the past two centuries in both scholarship and popular history.”
In Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History, Michel-Rolph Trouillot described this omission as “a chapter within a narrative of global domination”, thus as Eurocentrism:
“The silencing of the Haitian Revolution is only a chapter within a narrative of global domination. It is part of the history of the West and it is likely to persist, even in attenuated forms, as long as the history of the West is not retold in ways that bring forward the perspective of the world.”
According to Trouillot, the silencing of the Haitian Revolution is consistent with the desire to obscure three themes related to it: racism, slavery and colonialism:
“Finally, the silencing of the Haitian Revolution also fit the relegation to an historical backburner of the three themes to which it was linked: racism, slavery, and colonialism. In spite of their importance in the formation of what we now call the West, in spite of sudden outbursts of interest as in the United States in the early 1970s, none of these themes has ever become a central concern of the historiographic tradition in a Western country. In fact, each of them, in turn, experienced repeated periods of silence of unequal duration and intensity in Spain, France, Britain, Portugal, The Netherlands, and the United States. The less colonialism and racism seem important in world history, the less important also the Haitian Revolution.” Wordyhs ( talk) 14:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
The compulsory guilds, made compulsory by King Henry IV, were producer cartels - to refer to them as "worker representation" is utterly absurd. There had been an effort to end these compulsory cartels in 1776, by Turgot, but that effort had failed because of the fatal weakness of King Louis XVI. The French Revolutionaries, in the Estates General, proclaimed the end of the compulsory guilds on August the 4th 1789 - but such words were not given legal effect till 1791. 2A02:C7C:E183:AC00:5405:9838:B7F6:9189 ( talk) 13:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The majority of scholars today argue that the French Revolution did NOT contribute to the development of democracy in Europe, while this article argues the opposite, citing a single contribution, Livesey 2001, which is more than 20 years old and does not represent the standard of current scholarship. Deeply unbalanced and in need of revision. 86.6.148.125 ( talk) 15:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).