Talk:French Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the French Revolution article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of July 13, 2006.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia There is a request, submitted by FaustX, for an audio version of this article to be created.

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

The rationale behind the request is: "Very important topic".

See also: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests and Wikipedia:Spoken articles.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1
/Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Picture

This may seem insignificant, but perhaps at the top of the page there should be a picture? Wikipedia France's picture is pretty good. It is Louis XVI wearing the citizens cap with the tricolor as the background? Check it out here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9volution_fran%C3%A7aise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs09985 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Neumann

I cut the following as uncited and dubious:

One of the many effects of the French Revolution was the influence that it had on the famous German philosopher, Neumann. One of the effects that it had on him is that it helped him to develop his theory of the dialectic.

I have no idea who this "famous German philosopher Neumann" is supposed to be; the concept of dialectic, of course, goes back to the Greeks, but in its modern sense it is generally traced to Hegel. So either something here needs a great deal of clarification or, as I suspect, this is nonsense. - Jmabel | Talk 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious "further reading"

There was a listing for

  • Wakerman, Saul. Montesque and Gregoire: The Seizing of the Tower, Penguin, 2006 ISBN 0-945933-18-8

The ISBN is invalid; "Montesque" is presumably a typo for "Montesquieu"; all online references seem to duplicate the misspelling, which suggests that they are all mirrors of one another. I am taking it upon myself to delete this, and it should not be restored without some evidence that such a book actually exists. - Jmabel | Talk 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] External Link

I would like to add an external link to an Open Univeristy course (http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=1515)made available under Creative Commons licence. Can you let me know if you are happy for me to do this?--Jinky32 12:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Added. Historymike (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Really Hard to Understand

The Top page is very, Very difficult to understand, and needs MAJOR cleanup. Downatball5432 14:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


This crucial sentence about the causes of the Revolution is badly formed and unclear:

"Historians disagree about the political and socioeconomic nature of the revolution. One interpretation is that the old aristocratic order of the Ancien Régime succumbed to the ambitions of a rising bourgeoisie, influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, and allied with aggrieved peasants and wage-earners in the towns, particularly Paris and Lyon. Another interpretation sees various aristocratic and bourgeois attempts at political and economic reform spinning out of control and coinciding with popular movements of the new wage-earning classes and the provincial peasantry, but see any alliance between classes as contingent and incidental."


It's not clear in the above passage what clauses refer to what, and key terms are needlessly vague. What does it mean to "succumb to the ambitions" of the bourgeoisie? They went along with them, or they were destroyed by them? It's unclear. "...influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment"--grammatically this could refer to either the Ancien Regime, or the bourgeoise. Same thing with "allied"--who was allied with whom in this sentence? "Another interpretation sees"? "Sees" is not the best word choice. "Aristocratic and bourgeois attempts"--are these shared attempts, or opposed ones? "Spinning" and "coinciding" present awkwardly mixed metaphors. Someone really needs to rewite these sentences. ThaddeusFrye 20:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Tried to fix this.Aldrichio 14:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duration of the Revolution

Currently, this article states that the time period of the revolution was from 1789 to 1815, which would include the eras of the Consulate and First Empire. Most other writings that I have encountered on the subject say that the revolution lasted from 1789 to 1799, ending with the fall of the Directory. Can anyone say anything in support of the view that the Consulate and First Empire were parts of the revolution? If not, then I think the article should be changed.

Totally agree : The First Empire is clearly not a part of the French Revolution ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.140.34.204 (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
The First Empire, according to my History Prof, was considered part of the French Revolution as Napoléon was part of the revolutionary army, as well, although he bacame an emperor, he keeped the revolutionary ideals. That is why in 1814 and again in 1815, there was a period called the restoration, which essentially restored the king to the throne of France. European Rulers of that era considered Napoléon a revolutionary figure and a threat to their royalist, enlightened despotic nations. Therefore the consulate, the directory and the first empire should be kept on the article --Nat.tang 15:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The process of dating the French Revolution is a historiographical argument that, unfortunately, has raged since the nineteenth century, and will likely never be settled. If it is any consolation, both arguments can be considered "correct." I think a compromise would be to include a brief passage about the controversy, and to direct readers via Wiki-links to the Napoleonic pages. Historymike (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)christan is cool
There is a French philosopher that I have just been reading called Alain Badiou who dates the French Revolution 1792-94, i.e. with the establishment of the Convention. His idea is that during this period the Jacobins are defending against the corruption of the ideals of the constitution and as such establihing the "event" of the revolution itself. After it, with the Thermidorian Reaction, you have the rise of the economic profiteers like Boissy d'Anglas. Maybe this break is disputable, but what seems indisputable to me is that somehow the Revolution is still going on with the coup of 18th Brumaire in 1799. What principles are being defended by then? Who is putting their life on the line for a principle, however suicidal it might seem objectively? The country was bankrupt by the time Napoleon staged his coup, so the economic logic of the war had to take precedence over any lingering virtue it may have had. I think 1799 really needs to be the limit of the French Revolution, it makes no sense to continue to refer to it as such. Or if it does, maybe there needs to be a clearer definition of Revolution here to include Badiou's point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution --Rachel0898 (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above point, see Anthropologie du nom (by Badiou's cohort Sylvain Lazarus), pp. 220-224, for a succinct account of the political significance of periodisation in the work of Aulard, Mathiez, Lefebvre and Soboul. As Lazarus' and Badiou's work indicates, the problem of demarcation is an extremely significant one here, and deserves to have at least a short passage devoted to it.Shankspony (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy

The anti-democratic fervor was falling away from the enlightenment by the time that the revolution occurred with the main anti-democracy philosophers were dead (Voltaire and Baron d'Holbach for example). Read the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and it reads as much more a paean to democracy and citizenship (especially citizenship) than to individuality. Jvbishop 16:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

France during the revolution was NOT democratic as not everyone was allowed to vote. There were more authoritarian governments during this era than democratic governments (i.e. the Jacobins (ruled by terror), the Directory (ruled using the army), the Consuls (virtual dictatorship), and my favourite of them all, Napoléon (one of the directors and later Emperor/absolute ruler). Although Napoléon seemed democratic, he was not and only used democracy when it suited him best and disposed of it when it became an obsticle to power. What the enlightenment philosophe, although some of them were dead, favoured the English style of government, Constitutional Monarchy, which was NOT a democratic form of government at this time. If look at the period closely, you'll see that i'm right. --Nat.tang 22:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Universal suffrage was not a part of any early democratic government and the fact that the various forms of government instituted during the revolution failed to achieve the ideals of democracy does not change the fact the they were inspired by enlightenment ideals of democracy, in particular those of Tom Paine and Rousseau. The enlightenment had many different currents of thought flowing thru it. Some were very monarchist (Voltaire, Hobbes) others were semi-democratic, semi-monarchist (Burke) others very much democratic and anti-monarchist. To think that Thomas Paine was for constitutional monarchy is ludicrous, and Paine was definitely an influence and a participant in the early years of the revolution. Jvbishop 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Deaths

Only 18,000 killed in the reign of terror? I think not. By 1794, in Paris alone, the average was closer to 800 a month! By the Festival of the Supreme Being, the number of killings was already in excess of 80,000 in the whole of France.

Refer to the History Channel International, which has recently aired a documentary that includes such comment from many notible professors of French history. This unsigned comment was left by 69.135.178.138 (talk) and formatted by Jvbishop

William Doyle (Oxford History of the French Revolution, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 258) notes that the official figures for the Terror were about 15,000 victims. He estimated that, in total, 30,000 people may have been executed. Donald Greer (The Incidence of the Terror During the French Revolution 1935) came up with 16,594 by counting all known French archival records. Hugh Gough (The Terror in the French Revolution, New York: St. Matin's Press, 1998, p. 77) concurs with Greer, but argues that 40,000 more people died in prison, or were summarily executed without trial. Then there is the issue of the Revolt in the Vendée, in which hundreds of thousands of civilians died, but which a number of historians hesitate to lump together with the Terror, since state responsibility for the massacres is muddled (did the CPS intend for mass murder, or just pacification?). Historymike (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Women's History is missing

This article is very detailed and precise, but only mentions women's contributions to the Revolution once. More should be added! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.141.3.46 (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

I'll start to work on this. Olympe de Gouge was an important figure who has been omitted from this article, and I have a number of additional reference texts that I'll start perusing. This definitely merits a subsection of its own, plus more attention paid to the contributions of women during other facets of the Revolution. Good suggestion! Historymike (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Initially I expanded the material in this article that covers the The Women's March on Versailles, and I created a separate subsection for this important event.Historymike (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typo?

The Roman Catholic Church, the largest landowner in the country, levied a harsh tax on crops known as the dîme which while it annedated the crowns tax increases

                  Anyone have any idea what this should say?
I suspect it's meant to mean that they always came after - so something like postdate. It looks like it's meant to be an antonym of predate, that unfortunately doesn't seem to exist. I don't want to change it based on a theory without anyone's agreement though. Fysidiko 16:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Execution?

I know that many people were killed during the reign of terror on the slightest suspicion of opposing the Republic. Why then, did so many members of the Bourbon family living in France survive? Wouldn't the republicans have had all of them executed to avoid the risk of a King being restored? Emperor001 14:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

--

I've jsut been doing some revision and I think that the explanation could be that they either fled the country and then returned (Flight of the emigres) or went into hiding in the countryside where radicalism was less prevelant than in Paris (see Thermidorian reaction for counter-revoltionary action) and the major cities where the grip of the Sans-culottes was lessened. There are certainly more explanations for this abnormality but here are a few just to throw into the pot. --Samnutter3212 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See Also section

The following is listed in the See also section:

A Tale of Two Cities - A novel by Charles Dickens

If that is included, shouldn't other major works set in the French Revolution also be mentioned? For example, The Scarlet Pimpernel series by Baroness Orczy. Otherwise, why is A Tale of Two Cities mentioned as though it's non-fiction?

- Elin


[edit] Grammar in the text under the heading: "National Constituent Assembly (1789–1791)"

In the last paragraph of text under the heading: "National Constituent Assembly (1789–1791) == Storming of the Bastille", it says ...

"In rural areas, many went beyond this: some burned title-deeds and no small number of châteaux, as part of a general agrarian insurrection known as "la Grande Peur" (the Great Fear)."

Does this mean that not a small number of châteaux were burned, or should the "no" be simply changed into an "a" or just change the whole sentence to:

"In rural areas, many went beyond this: some ransacked the châteaux of the nobles, burned documentation recording feudal obligations, or compelled those nobles they found in residence to renounce their feudal rights, as part of a general agrarian insurrection known as "la Grande Peur" (the Great Fear)."

OneStooge 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Typos

'monarcy' appears a few times. Bennybutler 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think its fixed now. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page of the day?

Think this should be nominated for page of the day?--§ Eloc § 02:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection removed

Semi-protection was removed by User:WJBscribe, who has removed semi-protection from all these articles recently. After removing protection from King Arthur, i5 October, this administrator did not check back to see whether a torrent of vandalism had been unleashed by this action. It had been. I shall simply remove French Revolution from my Watchlist. --Wetman (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. If you have a problem with my actions, please direct yourself to my talkpage rather than making such presumptuous comments. For you information, it is a routine matter to lift protection after many months have expired so as to judge whether it remains necessary - you will find that many pages I have unprotected over recent months are experiencing little or no vandalism. I keep a watch on those article - King Arthur is in my view at the borderline of what is tolerable vandalism. As the encyclopedia anyone can edit, I view watchlisting and reverting a far preferable action than semi-protection. If you want another admin to review the protection status of King Arthur, you may request it at WP:RFPP. You post above seems ill-conceived - please think further before making such accusations in future and if you wish to comment about me, I would appreciate you doing so face-to-face. WjBscribe 04:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the spirit behind WjB's decision to remove the semi-protection tag. Not only do I find excessive tagging to be annoying, but in my experience most vandals get bored after a week or so and move on to other pursuits. Besides, reverting to an earlier clean version when vandals attack is not that dificult. Historymike (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What are the legacies of the French Revolution???

They are not here... The one who put the "Historical Analysis" there did not put instead "Legacy" there. The legacy is something that is left by the Revolution. And that Russian Revolution of 1917, as that section indicated is what has been taken from the French Revolution. NOTE:The information put on the latter part of introduction of the page is not enough to see the other legacies of the Revolution. -Pika ten10 (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect book reference

It's not Robert Sobel, it's Robert Soboul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.106.137 (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So, correct it if you know it's incorrect. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Robert Sobel did indeed pen The French Revolution: A Concise History and Interpretation, which went trhough several editions. Perhaps the user 141.228.106.137 was thinking of Albert Soboul, whose book I added to the bibliographical list. Historymike (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free encyclopedia, my butt

This is stupid. Why can't I edit any pages? Allexey79 (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is semi-protected, probably because of vandalism. This means that editing is disabled for anonymous users and users with accounts that are less than four days old. It seems that your account was created very recently, so that would account for the fact that you can't edit anything yet. Wait until the four days are up and then you'll be able to edit the article as normal. Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pictures

Hi my names Tyler im a middle school student and i come here for info in mostly W.studies papers . my teacher wants title page on clip art on our papers. i would really appreciate it if you could have a chapter with pictures for the topics on this site. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.192.215 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What? Whatipedia (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calonne?

This sentence fragment left me scratching my head:

"Calonne asked this group to approve a new land tax that would, ..."

Who the hell is Calonne? He is never mentioned before this. In fact that whole section is pretty hard to understand. 24.174.30.146 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've wikilinked Calonne. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 04:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for this entry. It is interesting, which is a feat for some writers of history.

[edit] Please remove vandalism

Under the "Women s March on Versailles" section, there is a line "Along with this crowd is Jackie Mangano who was picked up by Travis Walstrom the Time Traveling Assassin who brought her to the present day. Today they live in wealth from his deeds to society[citation needed]. " Please remove this obvious vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.134.163 (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been removed; thank you for pointing it out. ... discospinster talk 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External search on Estates

I searched Wiki for 1st 2nd 3rd Estates and found no correct match. So I went to Google and found this info (link) via French Revolution. Someone in the know, could you set the search to include 1st 2nd 3rd likeas First Second Third. Thanks in advance. Greg0658 (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standard work

Anyone know what the "standard work" is (if any) on the French Revolution? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aggrieving vs. Aggrieved

A recent change suggested that the collapse of the aristocrats aggrieved the peasants rather than they succumbed to peasants who were aggrieved. I don't think this is correct, have I made a mistake on the rollback? BananaFiend (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1789-1799?

Many historians state that the revolution began before 1789, Wright says that it began as aristocratic clash with the monarchy in 1787 and led on to the events of 1789... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.196.213 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robespeirre

Talk about Robespeirre bringing tranny to France. And unlessing totalitarism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.62.45 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)