Talk:French Revolution

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the French Revolution article.

Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
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:
Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces:
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
French military history task force
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792–1815)
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
WikiProject Echo      (Greek)
WikiProject Echo has identified French Revolution as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Greek language Wikipedia.
To-do list for French Revolution:

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Copyedit: Everything. Verify compliance with the Manual of Style; ensure prose is simple and readable.
  • Merge: Merge/Split/Summarize: This article should be in summary style; thus, it should provide a concise overview of the French Revolution, with "main article" links to further reading on in-depth details.
  • Verify: The entire article. Inline citations are needed for every claim.
  • Cleanup: Rewrite long lists into readable prose.
  • Expand: Expand and summarize the subject in Summary Style. How can we best provide coverage of this historical moment? The WP:LEAD needs rewritten to provide a short, scintilatting overview of the subject.
  • NPOV: Ensure the article is neutral; this is a contested subject.
  • Infobox: Can we improve upon the French History infobox? Perhaps provide a Revolution specific version?

Contents

[edit] Rights of man

The caption for the picture of the declaration of the rights of man says that it is the declaration of human rights. Clearly the declaration was sexist and was not what we would call true human rights today. 60.242.186.33 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The declaration pictured is not "the declaration of the rights of man". It is the "Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen". See http://fr.wikipedia.org/description/Homme for the meaning of "Homme".

Breandán Dalton (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-Revolution

It would be nice to have at least a sentence or two about the Counter-Revolution in this article. Kaldari (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anachronism

I removed the following from the article. Originally, I was only going to move it to the the end of the section, but it needs quality improvements. For one thing, it's generic - like a pamphlet. Secondly, it's a little anachronistic, even in its simplicity. The reasons listed in the article as is are certainly not pro-monarchy, they're better thought out and delivered, and they're more accurate and relevant. If you want to make a case for socialism in France in the late 1700's, that should still go in a special section/subsection devoted to it.

BTW: is there really that much disagreement about the repetition in history of: people living under terrible conditions and an indifferent, inept government leading to violence and revolution; or is that a standard recipe for tensions and instability? Blablablob (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Historians disagree about the political and socioeconomic nature of the Revolution. Traditional Marxist interpretations, such as that presented by Georges Lefebvre,[1] described the revolution as the result of the clash between a feudalistic noble class and the capitalist bourgeois class. Some historians argue that the old aristocratic order of the Ancien Régime succumbed to an alliance of the rising bourgeoisie, aggrieved peasants, and urban wage-earners.

Yet another interpretation asserts that the revolution resulted when various aristocratic and bourgeois reform movements span out of control. According to this model, these movements coincided with popular movements of the new wage-earning classes and the provincial peasantry, but any alliance between classes was contingent and incidental.

[edit] Source and Correction of France's Debt

Since I'm a new member I am not permitted to edit this protected page but I wanted to make a request. I found a creditable source of France's financial circumstances, they actually had 4 billion livres of debt (80 % of GNP), with a budget deficit of 100 million livres. Here is the source, third paragraph: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/63.3/potofsky.html. It should be changed to more accurately depict France's financial situation. I'm pretty sure the link will work, but my college pays for a subcription so I'm not positive.

Thanks,

RoberttheKingmaker (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposing rewrite, improvement drive

Greetings everyone: I propose we begin a rewrite of this article, in order to create a better read. A subject of this magnitude deserves the best, and I'd like to get momentum behind a substantial improvement drive. I am going to begin editing shortly; please feel free to revert any of my edits if you don't agree: we can discuss. Is there anyone else that would like to help? Aux armes, citoyens. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

or aux stylos...whatev...let's get this going. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm in. OK, I think first, on reading the article, the first thing that jumps out is the disorderly nature of the chapters. Maybe we could agree here as to the section headers, and where we will link to complete articles (also try and point out if these exist or not). Does that seem like a good place to start to other people? Hrcolyer (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Great! I agree, the article has a pasted-together feel. We can discuss section/subsections and the weight given to each topic. From what I can tell, there are articles on most big events throughout; their quality is another question. Anyway, great to have you onboard; I agree, organization is a good place to start. I'm going to start working on sourcing, also. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I think a division by period would help. Starting with pre-1789 (working title, more something like "Situation in France previously" or "Causes") and finishing with Bonaparte. Maybe if we could establish the various events/periods needed..., and also what over sections are needed. I think we also need to discuss the philosophical grounding for it, and it's cultural implication (place in the French psyche, etc...). What else?Hrcolyer (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as taking responsability for some sections, I'd be interested in trying to re-do the "Counter-revolution" section, which I suppose is meant to include the Vendée and Chouannerie sections...Hrcolyer (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Great. Before even reading your entire reply I thought: "I hope he volunteers for the counter-rev section". Agreed re: pre-1789; perhaps some sort of a "background" or brief explanation of the ancien regime, specifically the tail end of the Bourbon dynasty. Perhaps a new "Legacy" section, which would cover the effects of the Revolution, both worldwide and in France (I think this is what you allude to with cultural implication). The top section "Causes" is mostly a list; I'm not generally fond of lists, do you think there is a better way we could present this material? Lazulilasher (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be possible to convey the same information in narrative form. Basically if we quickly present the situation of France in the 1780s, we will have to talk about "growing resentment about...". I think if we also talk about the ideology/philosophical justifications of the revolution, and the politics in its unfolding, the causes will all end up there. Also, the box on the right is a bit of a mess. I notice if you click on the other boxes, there is a new pretty "History of France" box. It seems OK, I suppose we should use this. Maybe at the bottom we should have a specific French Revolution one, with links to periods, events, people, theories, etc... Hrcolyer (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about the box, as well. Not sure if it's a great idea, but I was envisioning an infobox dealing specifically with the French Revolution, and providing easy access to articles on the important topics. We could have a French History drop down box at the bottom. Just an idea.... Lazulilasher (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I think we need the two infoboxes. The French history one already exists, so maybe we should keep that, and the one we create can go at the bottom...Hrcolyer (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Any thoughts on what should go in said infobox?Hrcolyer (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a "Series on the French Revolution" and have links to "People", "Events", etc? Perhap the French History could go at the bottom, and the more pertinent Revolution could go at the top? Lots of work, I know, but this whole project is going to be an endeavour. I'm realising that now as I work on the sourcing/prose. This is in the top 2,500 viewed pages on en-wiki. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
There was, at one time, such a series, with all articles linked by a template. It seems to have been disassembled. - Jmabel | Talk 18:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like most of them are still linked by a template, but the template was removed from this article. See for example French Revolution from the summer of 1790 to the establishment of the Legislative Assembly.
Many of these still are not much changed from when I singlehandedly threw together a "solid first draft" over 5 years ago. - Jmabel | Talk 18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

I unprotected this article, as I am attempting to improve it. I found it disingenuous to have the "article needs improvement" tag on w/ semi-protect on as well. I've got the page on my watchlist, and it will be my main editing area for the time being. If vandalism becomes too significant, I will re-protect. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the unprotection didn't work. I reprotected the page: someone had replaced "National Assembly" with "Elvis died in the French Revolution, not on a toilet". This went unnoticed for hours. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I just now cleaned up some major vandalism. Someone may want to see if I caught it all. I think this should be semi-protected again, though I won't do so unilaterally. - Jmabel | Talk 17:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments

Hello. I made some minor updates of the page, but here are a few personal additional commments:

+ one question : you use "British english" (the one I studied) or "American english" (the one I use now) Zetud (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (not native English speaker, please be indulgent)

No worries. Thanks for coming over. Soon, I am going to start editing more intensely. I think the article should be mainly from 1789-99, with a background section briefly overviewing the ancien regim and a slightly more detailed portion explaining the end years of the Bourbon Dynasty. Agreed: more Napoleon is needed: probably more than a "whiff of grapeshot". We have an intense spelling policy, from what I understand this article should be in all British spelling... (international topic, not related to America at all)
Don't be concerned about language; I have no difficulties understanding. I am the same one fr-wiki. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Alright, I've started to rewrite the Estates-General section, add cites, etc...let me know if I screw anything up ;) Lazulilasher (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most of these links shouldn't go at the bottom, however, Tale of Two Cities & Scarlet Pimpernal should go somewhere, possibly in culture section? Anyway, welcome. As for when we should end, although originally I would have said 1804, actually, reading seems to show that the 18th Brumaire coup is taken as an end date, which makes sense. We go back to a strong state (the Consulate), so it is no longer a "Revolution". So I think 1st Republic is in place during the revolution, but outlives it. So 1st Republic is also a successor. The problem arises from the confusion between historical period and forms of French state. The Revolution overlaps several of the latter, and the Republic existed through several (well, two) periods of French History. Or am I alone on this?Hrcolyer (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
But that isn't to say we shouldn't talk about what happens after, just that I don't think that we should count this under "French Revolution", rather as "Successor" or "Consequences" or something...Hrcolyer (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Also: when did the Revolution "officially" start? Was it the Estates-General? Camille Desmoulins calling men to arms? 14 July? Lafayette leading Marie Antoinette onto the balcony? I'm concerned because I wanted to add a "Pre Revolution" section that comprises the growing financial crises on Calonne's responses, and a more detailed explanation of the leadup to the Assembly of Notables. I'm curious what everyone thinks. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Carlyle begins with: "Part 1: The Bastille"; I guess he believes that to be the beginning. But, wasn't the Tennis Court Oath rather revolutionary? Lazulilasher (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I would say the Etats Généraux (1st May), as they were usually only used to deal with a crisis. I would definitely put it before La Bastille, if not the start, maybe the Tiers Etat and the Clergé walking out of the EG, or the king closing it, or the taking of the title of Assemblée Nationale? If not 1st May, my vote goes for the latter.Hrcolyer (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm OK to start on 14th July. The États Généraux is a normal process, but the Bastille event is clearly not. Keep in mind the famous question of Louis XVI to the duc de Liancourt on 14th in the evening, and the duc's answer : C'est une révolte ? Non sire, c'est une Révolution (It's a revolt ? No Sire, it's a revolution). Zetud (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The article on Liancourt points out that this quote was from the 12th. Although if I'm alone on this, it doesn't really matter, but I do feel the Revolution started before the storming of the Bastille. The Estates-General, after all, are not a normal process, but a way of responding to a crisis...Hrcolyer (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
And not that this is an argument per se, but looking at the other foreign language wikis I can understand, they all tend to either start at convocation des etats generaux or when the tiers etat declared itself assemblée constituante...Hrcolyer (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The Etats-generaux should be included. According to Doyle, this represented the end of absolute monarchy. And, we cannot include the Etats without a brief discussion of the sorrounding history: Assembly of Notables, financial crisis, monarchy could not intervene in Dutch R. I rewrote those two sections (Notables/Etats) and assiduously sourced them. Let me know what you think :) Cdt, Lazulilasher (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree; the Revolution proper began on 14 July. I'm going to get a C'est une revolte tatoo, I think. Anyway, pursuant to that, I am going to reorder the sections a bit to make it easier for us to focus (i.e. "Pre Revolution") Lazulilasher (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The list: anyone want to start working on changing that long list in the "causes" section to prose? If we could get some citations on it too, that would be awesome :) Lazulilasher (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Done that. Dendodge|TalkContribs 20:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Página espejo de la Wikipedia
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo