Talk:French Revolution/Archive 2

This page 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.

Winter 2003-2004 rewrite, Mignet

assholes people involved in the French Revolution]]. I hope that, as well as being useful for user reference, these will be of use as places for those of us with a moderate knowledge of the Revolution to effectively build up a set of "pointers" to help one another find what is already in the wikipedia, in order to eventually come back and strengthen this article. Much of the information we would need for a strong article appears to be scattered around the wikipedia, but of that, much has not up to now been easy to identify. -- Jmabel 09:35, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

8 days and a lot of research later, I'm jumping in. -- Jmabel 23:49, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've carried this pretty seriously down through the storming of the Bastille; also, I've moved discussion of causes (as against the history of the revolution itself) out to a separate Causes of the French Revolution.

Arguably, I've stuck a little too close to Mignet, whom I've been using as a source. He's a bit polemical, which is to say POV, but I believe I know my history well enough to have avoided falling too much into his POV.

In any case, I'm getting out of this article for a few days. If someone else would like to cover part of the remaining decade (!), which is still mostly as I found it, please leap in. If not, I'll pick up in a few days where I left off. I'm on good dround down to the Thermidorian reaction (1794). Post-Thermidor, I don't know the history that well myself, and will have less ability to evaulate sources, but that leaves me five more years of reasonably solid ground. It would be really, really cool if someone who knows their stuff could cover the Directoire years. -- Jmabel 04:52, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think there are too much reference to Mignet, who in his history of Revolution in the 1820ies and then 1830ies tried to convey his political opinions. I want to point a few sentences that would be considered extremely controversial now :

The royal court, in François Mignet's words, "encouraged every anti-revolutionary enterprise and avowed none." (Mignet, History…, CHAPTER III).

Mignet might have said that, but it is probably to be qualified. If many plot were discovered that involved the surronding of the kings (and maye the king himself) ("d'Octobre en Mars, on découvrit à peu près un complot par mois : Augeard, Favras, Maillebois" Michelet, Livre III Chapitre V). But the royal court wanted to avoid empowering too much some part of the nobility or of the clergy, therefore refusing for instance to assist the project of the Count of Artois, and the project of M. de Bouillé is not supported either. Against the they refused their support to the first (catholic) mass movement of Froment (may 1790).

However, Mirabeau died on 2 April 1791. In Mignet's words, "No one succeeded him in power and popularity" and, before the end of the year, the new Legislative Assembly would adopt this "draconian" measure.

At his death, Mirabeau was much respected by the people, but what I would call the "makers of the Revolution" had understood he was playing a very ambiguous game.

Mignet has written, "The constitution of 1791... was the work of the middle class, then the strongest; for, as is well known, the predominant force ever takes possession of institutions... In this constitution the people was the source of all powers, but it exercised none." (Mignet, History…, CHAPTER IV)

This point of view is - so to speak - completely POV ;) You have to replace it in the Constitutional Monarchy of 1815 - 1830, it was a way to attack Louis XVIII / Charles X more than anything else. At this point, the Revolution is still lead by the upper class (cf F. Furet), the text of the Constitution, whilst hard to translate for me, is very clear.

Article 7. - Nul ne pourra être nommé électeur, s'il ne réunit aux conditions nécessaires pour être citoyen actif, savoir :

- Dans les villes au-dessus de six mille âmes, celle d'être propriétaire ou usufruitier d'un bien évalué sur les rôles de contribution à un revenu égal à la valeur locale de deux cents journées de travail, ou d'être locataire d'une habitation évaluée sur les mêmes rôles, à un revenu égal à la valeur de cent cinquante journées de travail ;

- Dans les villes au-dessous de six mille âmes, celle d'être propriétaire ou usufruitier d'un bien évalué sur les rôles de contribution à un revenu égal à la valeur locale de cent cinquante journées de travail, ou d'être locataire d'une habitation évaluée sur les mêmes rôles à un revenu égal à la valeur de cent journées de travail ;

- Et dans les campagnes, celle d'être propriétaire ou usufruitier d'un bien évalué sur les rôles de contribution à un revenu égal à la valeur locale de cent cinquante journées de travail, ou d'être fermier ou métayer de biens évalués sur les mêmes rôles à la valeur de quatre cents journées de travail ;

- A l'égard de ceux qui seront en même temps propriétaires ou usufruitiers d'une part, et locataires, fermiers ou métayers de l'autre, leurs facultés à ces divers titres seront cumulées jusqu'au taux nécessaire pour établir leur éligibilité.

Narval 09:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is too much Mignet: it's too little anyone else. This article should give a broad range of opinion, and no one has gone through to add other historians' opinions. As you can see, where I retained opinionated remarks by Mignet, I was pretty careful to attribute them. NPOV doesn't mean we don't report opinions: it means that they are attributed (which they are) and balanced (which they won't be until someone else does something like the heavy lifting I did on this nearly three years ago). - Jmabel | Talk 19:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In the course of a major rewrite, I've removed the following statement from the article because I believe it to be false. (I suppose the last sentence is true, but it's already elsewhere in the article.)

The King tried to make the Estates meet in a modern way but the parlements decided that the Estates-General would meet in the same way as it met in 1614: in different chambers for each of the three classes, or Three Estates. Each of the Estates received one vote out of three on all issues.

I am not aware of evidence that the king had this intention. The accounts I've read of the meeting of the Estates general (notably http://www.outfo.org/literature/pg/etext06/8hfrr10.txt, which I am following on this period) tend to contradict this, but provide no direct evidence of the king's intentions, which might have been revealed, for example, in private or official correspondence. If anyone has evidence for the earlier claim, I'd be glad to reinstate something to that effect, but the general quality of the article before I started on it doesn't encourage me to assume a lot of knowledge on the part of the author of this statement. Jmabel 01:16, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I know I said I'd stay out of this article for a bit, but...

I followed several other sources at putting the number of deputies to the 1789 Estates General at 600 for the Third Estate and 300 for each of the others. However, http://www.quid.fr/2000/Q017710.htm, which seems to me quite well researched has "1 139 députés élu par 615 bailliages et sénéchaussées, dont clergé 291 (curés 206), noblesse 270 (dont 90 libéraux), tiers état 578 (dont 200 avocats, 3 ecclésiastiques, 11 nobles)", which is to say ""1,139 deputies elected by 615 bailliages and sénéchaussées (regions headed by a bailiff or senechal, respectively) with 291 clergy (206 of them "curés" - priests as against higher clergy), 270 represntatives of the nobility (90 of them liberals), and 578 representatives of the Third Estate (including 200 lawyers, 3 priests, and 11 nobles)." I'm inclined to believe these numbers and, unless someone speaks up to the contrary in the next 72 hours, I'm going to edit the article accordingly. -- Jmabel 18:15, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've fixed this in the article, and will deal with it more comprehensively in French States-General. -- Jmabel 08:00, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This article now "does the job" down to July 14, 1789, but really falls off after that. -- Jmabel 22:42, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've extended it a few more months (at the pace I'm going, I'm afraid I'm only doing one month of the revolution each month!). It's already getting awfully big. I've now split out causes & prelude, but it is inevitable that to avoid this becoming massive (like maybe 100KB), we are going to have to split out some of the events unquestionably part of the revolution itself. Since this is part of the History of France series, that's a bit tricky. My suggestion, unless anyone objects, is to keep a broad narrative here, split out periods each into their own article, and create a sort of second-level article-linking box for use in those articles, which will show all of the periods currently given for French History, but will also contain those specific to the French Revolution. I'm prototyping that at Template:French Revolution. -- Jmabel 05:47, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

No one else seems to be particularly tracking this article, so I guess I'll just go for it. -- Jmabel 06:01, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

The Appearance of Factions

Dates needed as to when precisely had "The aristocrat Jacques Antoine Marie Cazalès and the abbé Jean-Sifrein Maury led what would become known as the right wing, the opposition to revolution." --Thanks, Maysara 20:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Basically, during the period of the National Constituent Assembly. - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The National Constituent Assembly

(1) There is a contradiction between this article (in header "The National Assembly") and the main National Constituent Assembly article as to the date given for the Constituent-Assembly's dissolution in September 1791. Here in the 29th, there in the 30th. I added the date in a recent edit early-on in the text before diving in the details of the Assembly, and I did this because this section about the Assembly is rather big and the reader is sort of lost in the subsequent events especially that He/She does not know from the beginning, how much is the life-time of the Assembly. I tried to find-out about the exact date of the Assembly's dissolution but I failed (also on the web I found the same two dates given here) - however, I used the main NCA article of Wikipedia as a reference and consequently, now we have TWO contradictory dates in the same article about the same event - which certainly needs to be fixed, also in relation with the main article of the Assembly. (2) Generally, this section is quite too long and I believe perhaps it needs to be shortened a little? Maybe some parts of it may be moved to the main NCA article -- Thank you, Maysara 17:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting by head

I'm assuming this means votes would be allocated by the number of people represented?

Voting by head means each representative would have one vote. The alternative was voting by estate. If they voted by head, then the double representation of the Third Estate meant that if they stood solid and won over some of the lower clergy or some liberal noblemen, they would have a working majority. Voting by estates, they would have to win over the majority of one of the other estates, or the other two would simply outvote them. - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Proto-Revolutionary Activity--Main article(?)

There is no "Main article: Proto-Revolutionary Activity to the French Revolution". Why a reference to it at the beginning of the section is being there? Remove it? -- Best, Maysara 16:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

An article on representatives-on-mission

Does anyone else think that representatives-on-mission needs a mention or its own article?

Feel more than free to write one! - Jmabel | Talk 02:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Have done although i'd welcome someone with greater knowledge addding a bit more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative-on-mission

results...

there is a section and article on Causes of the French Revolution...there should also be a section and article on Results of the French Revolution. Kingturtle 04:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that would be a toughie. As Zhou Enlai said a mere 30-odd years ago, it's too soon to tell. - Jmabel | Talk 02:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A big problem is that it's hard to say when it ended. Did it end with Thermidor? Or with Brumaire? Or with Waterloo? Or with the Commune in 1871? john k 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The royal kool?

Flight to Varennes section refers to "the royal kool fled the Tuileries..." kool is not in the dictionary... would appear to be subtle vandalism

Dshaffer 01:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. - Jmabel | Talk 21:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Liberty Leading The People

Yesterday I removed the Delacroix painting from the article; someone else added it right back. Please refrain from using Liberty Leading the People in this article. It has nothing to do with the Revolution of 1789 (which this article is about), it's a representation of the July Revolution of 1830. The effect is as silly as if the photo Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima were used in the article World War I. Andrew Levine 16:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, Andrew, .. well I don't agree with you: Not all images and pictures must be so directly related to or addressing the topic in such exactness. Sometimes you add them because they provide a certain abstract dimension and effect to the text, and which also makes the article looks more beautiful. Thus, you will find that the same painting, has been added to the Nationalism article, though perhaps in a little more than just that sense.

Moreover, I'd say, Liberty Leading the People is related to the 1789 revolution; of course not chronologically but certainly symbolically. I argue that if a revolution occurs in France in our time (a one seems to be impending these days actually!), "Liberty Leading the People" will be again of a symbolic importance, meaning, and value! .. Thank you, Maysara 18:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism is an article about a concept, not a historical event. Of course it should be illustrated with images that symbollically depict nationalism. But LLTP has about as much of a "symbolic" link to the Revolution of 1789 as the Iwo Jima photograph has to the American Revolutionary War. I am sure adding Rosenthal's stirring war photo to the article on the American Revolution would make for a more attractive article, but we choose images based on their relevance to the subject, not whether they make it look pretty. The simple fact, which I now notice that at least two people before me on this talk page have noted, and which any art critic, historian, museum exhibit, or French person who was paying the least attention in school will tell you, is that LLTP is meant to represent the 1830 revolution. (Besides, of course, the men's style of dress would also be anachronistic in the 18th century.) Andrew Levine 20:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you be a little more polite! I already know that LLTP represents the 1830 Rev., and I have already demonstrated my opinion and why I think the image should stay. If you'll have to disagree with that I must ask you to express yourself more politely and in a civilised manner. For the time being you're behaving as a person of such resentment that is totally unjustifiable to me. The image stays. You cool down! And I'm up to it! Maysara 22:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything like impoliteness or resentment in my preceding post. (The "you" in "will tell you" is a generic you). In any case I am requesting comment on the matter. Andrew Levine 23:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I saw a little bit of impoliteness and a little bit of touchiness. But that's not going to solve this matter.

The salient question is this: has the LLTP reasonably become a symbol for the French Revolution? Since it clearly does not depict the French Revolution, it only makes sense that its use in this article be cited if it is to be included. Only if such a citation can be found would an editor's opinion over whether we should include it become relevant. Cite first (due to the anachronism), then opinion and consensus building, and only then inclusion. So, rather than getting bent out of shape, let's first bend over a few books on this matter and see what's to be found. Agreed? Rklawton 00:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple of Internet searches show that LLTP is being used as a symbol for the French Revolution. Dogpile results: 3 images out of 53 on an image search with "French Revolution" turn up LLTP. Google turns up 3 images out of the first 20 non-wiki pages. This includes two academic sites and a PBS article on French Blue. However, this finding is anecdotal and "original research", both no-no's for good Wikipedia writing. With these tantalizing clues in hand, I've e-mailed a French history prof and a research librarian to see if they can show if and how this symbolic association came about. It's still possible that it's only a symbol of anachronism. I'll keep ya'll posted on any leads they can provide. Rklawton 00:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi RKlawton, thanks for entering the discussion. In addition to your inquiries, I have a French history class tomorrow and will engage my professor in discussion regarding this matter. As for the Google Image search, I do not note within the first two-hundred results any academic pages which attempt to associate LLTP with the 1789 revolution. The only results attempting to do so are the PBS page and a site dealing with Biblical prohecy. Of course, Google's results sometimes vary and it is possible it gave you different results than it gave me, so I would like you to share the specific academic pages you found. Also, two of the three Dogpile results appear to be student papers. Andrew Levine 02:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend to imply that I found scholarly papers on the topic of LLTP and the French Revolution. What I found were professor's websites (and the like) that use the LLTP image in conjunction with the French Revolution. This certainly doesn't constitute scholarly (or peer reviewed) work on the topic at hand. In short, I agree entirely that this does not present evidence that the LLTP had transformed into a symbol. Thus, Wikipedia standards haven't yet been met.

My next step has been to e-mail some of these folks to see if they have the sort of information that we can use: scholarly works on LLTP and it's (possible) symbolism for the French Revolution. That link hasn't been found, and without that link, I can't really support including the image in this article. The most important point, though, is that we are all looking to see if such research exists. And that's the cool-n-groovy thing about Wikipedia. Do you have connections with our French peers who may have access to better information than we? Rklawton 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I hope we can all agree that the placement of LLTP next to the section "Storming the Bastille" creates the false impression that the painting depicts that event and should be avoided. Andrew Levine 02:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a separate issue. To be neutral on this matter, I suggest we see if we can discover the single most recognized symbol of the French Revolution and place it at the top of the article. I agree that the other images should be placed near the related text. If that places these images in proximity, then it's just unavoidable coincidence. However, I suspect that if we follow this neutral logic, you won't have anything to worry about. Rklawton 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I just took a second look at the article. Following the logic I outlined above, the images are presently not located correctly, and the LLTP image exists only in a courtesy, benefit-of-the-doubt sort of way. Rklawton 03:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that, Rklawton, and thank you for all the input. I wonder what was your (and Andrew's) professors' opinions?! And perhaps, owing to your research here and the sum of it that you have already done: an addition to the Liberty Leading the People article could be made in regard to it being used in such a symbolic way; of course, if you find some references or some so-called "peer reviewed" information on the matter. That would be great, really. But what is certainly already great, is how civilised debate and intercourse leads to such constructive and creative ideas that are sometimes beyond one's expectations; perhaps that's the reason why such elevated intercourses are being frequently and easily neglected and forgoten! I must thank you again for your nice and energetic involvement.

Most appreciatively, __ Maysara 12:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I spoke with my history professor. She said that the painting should not be included in this article, even as symbolism. She said that any associations of LLTP with the 1789 Revolution are "a common misconception" which is much more widespread in the U.S. than in France. Andrew Levine 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some interesting resources to explore.[1] [2] [3] [4] Take a look and let us know what you think. Rklawton 18:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

For now, I've taken the liberty (or the Liberty) of removing the painting from the article again, based on my French history professor's advice. We can always add it later if there's enough countervailing evidence that she's somehow wrong. Andrew Levine 22:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Since this is an article about the French Revolution, your choice seems logical. Clearly the LLTP contains imagery stemming directly from the French Revolution and the ideals behind it. In fact, it's a very stirring example of the French Revolutionary symbolism's effects. Given that, you might consider relocating this image to a section covering the lasting influence the French Revolution has had on the nation and even the world.

On a related note, perhaps we should consider adding an article about the symbolism used in the French Revolution (philosophy, literature, art, and music). Such an article should include a section about how this symbolism has been promulgated over the last two centuries. LLTP would make a fine example. I think we'll find influences on the Napoleonic wars, the Franco-Prussian war, the two world wars, French colonialism, and even its present difficulties with its unassimilated minorities. Rklawton 01:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

These are all good ideas. For all its details, the current article is kind of weak in examining the legacy of the Revolution, how its ideals influenced the later revolutions and the current Republic's constitution. If we had a section like that, I'd not mind including LLTP there, as long as it had a sufficiently clear caption saying something like "Eugène Delacroix's painting Liberty Leading the People, depicting 1830's July Revolution, draws on sentiments that had crystallized in the first French Revolution." Andrew Levine 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

WHETHER you, Andrew, consider your French history professor to be a sort of an incarnation of some deity, THIS, is irrelevant. Get academic references from her first, before sanctifying her words merely for an excuse to enforce your deconstructive resentment and instincts. I told you I was up to it. AGAIN, the image stays. You watchout for the consequences of going into an Edit war. You should first attain consensus (which you have non) in order for you to revert and delete the contributions of others. The user(s) who decided to add this image previously had to do so in the same way. You are certainly no different from them in order for you to have exceptional rights. Again, the opinion of your professor is simply irrelevant (and who knows whether SHE even exists at all in reality!) I'd have trusted you had you behaved differently from the very beginning. Now you just will get frustrated. __ Maysara 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Maysara, you are starting to make personal attacks and assume bad faith (saying my teacher might not exist?) without any basis. On what knowledge are you basing the claim that the painting belongs here? I don't know what your background in French history is, but I do know that it's not really possible to find academic references that LLTP is not a symbolic rendering of the storming of the Bastille, just for the same reason it would be impossible to find references that the Eiffel Tower is not an architectural representation of the Edict of Fontainebleau. You're asking me to prove a negative. Andrew Levine 02:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding my professor: I trust all of the administrators on Wikipedia to respect the privacy of outside individuals. Find me a willing admin, and I will gladly give him or her the name and e-mail address of my prof so that she can be reached with a non-intrusive request made by a disinterested party. Andrew Levine 02:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it! And haven't you noticed that your professor already did precisely prove a negative! OBVIOUSLY, you haven't been "paying the least attention in school"! nor here. What did not occur to your mind is that, simply, there is no way to prove that there is no relation between the LLTP painting and the FR, AS WELL. The only thing you've been doing so far is grand unjustified RESENTMENT: to being disrespectful to others and unappreciative of their contributions. You systematically ignore Rklawton's research and possible proves of a positive, that there is even a STRONG symbolic relation between LLTP and FR, you keep reverting and deleting the image that was once added by others most certainly for a reason, and then you somehow expect friendliness and good faith in you (that was by the way once given and provided to you and was met by impoliteness and resentment - just scroll upwards and see my first response to you! It never occurred to you just to apologize!)

Yet, I will apologize for my assuming bad faith, though I hold YOU the first to be responsible for it. I care not the least as to the proves of your professor's either existence or incarnation! much time has been already wasted. Finally, I am satisfied with the comment added by you to the image. __ Maysara 03:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether LLTP remains in the article or not for the moment isn't very significant. The final decision will rest on the scholarly research about the relationship between the revolution and LLTP and whether this relationship warrents the image's inclusion in the article about the revolution. Let's see what the published experts have to say. Your professor can be of great help if she could point us toward these scholarly resources. With such resources in hand, we can leave the debate over her existance to Sartre. Rklawton 03:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

LLPT Resources

I found another resource LLPT [5]

I also found this very interesting: "[Delacroix had] the ability to unite allegory and history, and mould into a tumultuous whole figures mythological, historical, literary and real." [6] With this in mind, it doesn't seem to be appropriate to say that Delacroix intended to paint a specific scene from a specific revolution. Delacroix was a French master[7], and I think he entitled his painting exactly as he intended: "Liberty Leading the People". It commemorates (his words), but not necessarily specifically depicts the July Revolution. The painting is more about French people fighting for and along side of liberty with liberty as a multi-faceted ideal. One could fairly say this image represent the entire French struggle to free themselves from oppression. Given its powerful expression, it would be nice to extend this to all human-kind, but Delacroix limited this sentiment by including the French tri-color.

One may argue that the French Revolution was not complete until the French were free from an absolute monarchy. Thus, what began in the 18th century, ended much later. [8] Rklawton 05:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, Delacroix is on the cover of the most popular French Revolution DVD on Amazon: [9].

LLTP recommendation

My recommendation turns out to be a compromise. I hope it meets everyone's approval. Clearly LLTP is a symbol of French revolution (lower case "r") from monarchy. Keeping in mind that Wikipedia has a whole series of articles detailing the history of France, I recommend:

Keep the image in the July Revolution article.
Add the image to France in Modern Times I (1792-1920). This article covers the transformation from a French monarchy to a modern republic, and I can imagine no better icon for this process.
Crop the image to include Liberty and insert it into the History of France template. This will result in a recognizable form of LLPT appearing in all the French history articles – without unintentionally associating it with the revolution in 1789. Rklawton 05:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very reasonable proposal. The image of Liberty personnified as a bold woman, which predates Delacroix, has become one of the symbols of modern France (Marianne) and its use in the template according to your proposal renders the symbol appropriate to all articles in the History of France series. Andrew Levine 05:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The above is not a bad proposal. I have taken a different approach. I modified the caption to reference both the July Revolution AND the Storming of the Bastille. You guys can debate whether the caption should read "often assumed to be symbolic of" or "often mistaken to be symbolic of". My point is that, since there is widespread misperception of what the image portrays, it is sufficient to state what the image was supposed to portray alongside what many (or most) people think it portrays. If I ever knew that it was supposed to portray the July Revolution, I had forgotten that fact until I was reminded of it by this discussion.

--Richard 07:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, after re-reading the above discussion, I expanded the caption to capture the various points that were being made about symbolism. Hopefully this helps.

--Richard 07:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Therein lies the rub. Though we have tried, we could find no sources to indicate that this mistake is indeed a common one. You clearly feel you have good reason to believe this statement is true, and I don't doubt your sincerity. However, as a proponent of this fact, it is i,ncumbent on you to either support it with evidence. Rklawton 15:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith. I came here via the RFC and thought I had a solution that would satisfy all parties. I guess I was wrong but let's see if we can learn something from my failure.

So, there are three questions to address...

First, does the painting only commemorate the July Revolution of 1830 or does it symbolize French revolution against monarchy in general?

Second, does the painting symbolize the French Revolution of 1789?

Third, even if the painting does symbolize French revolution against monarchy in general AND the French Revolution in particular, should it be used to symbolize the storming of the Bastille?

Nobody is arguing that the painting was meant to depict the storming of the Bastille. The question is whether it is appropriate in the French Revolution article in general and in the storming of the Bastille in particular. Everybody who got an education in France knows it's a commemoration of the July Revolution of 1830. Presumably, anybody who knows anything about Delacroix or French history knows the same thing.

The question then is whether the picture has a symbolism among the common populace that is different from what we know above. For this, I went to Google and searched on "French Revolution Liberty Leading the People".

And after a bit of digging, here's what I found:

Here's a website (from the French Embassy in South Africa)

http://www.ambafrance-rsa.org/HTML/ThisIsFrance/Icons/IC_Emblems_Body.htm

Same text is available from the French Embass in the U.S.

http://www.info-france-usa.org/atoz/marianne.asp

Read the section about "Marianne"

Marianne is present everywhere in France and holds a place of honor in town halls and law courts. She symbolizes the "Triumph of the Republic", a bronze sculpture overlooking Place de la Nation in Paris. Her profile stands out on the official seal of the country. It is engraved on coins and drawn on stamps and banknotes. Marianne is considered as the most prominent depiction of the French Republic.

But who is this women, presented, by the artist Daumier, as a mother nursing two children, or, by the sculptor Rude, as an angry warrior voicing the Marseillaise on the Arc de Triomphe, or, by the painter Delacroix, as representing Liberty leading the people on the barricades, and where does she come from? One thing is certain. Her image never leaves the French indifferent. In the last two wars, certain people worshipped her just like a saint. Others, who were anti-Republican, often dragged the mud.

That answers the first question, right? Marianne (Liberty) represents the spirit of French revolution against monarchy.

Here's anothere article that I think is particularly apropos...

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/critic/feature/0,,1450419,00.html

Now, you have a citation of an arts critic for The Guardian who says "It is the definitive image of the French Revolution - and yet Eugène Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People does not portray the French Revolution at all."

I think that answers the second question. People outside France and even in the arts community see LLTP as an image (the definitive image according to the author of the above article) of the French Revolution.

However, on the third question, I think it would be hard to "prove" that LLTP was commonly mistaken as a literal depiction of the storming of the Bastille. To do that, you'd have to find someone who had actually run a survey on this question. Understanding that this is only anecdotal evidence, I offer the following websites.

http://www.hastingsrowingclub.co.uk/

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2005/sept/14/yehey/opinion/20050914opi3.html

In the above article from the Manila Times, the author says "People power conveys the romantic notion of an outraged people taking destiny into their own hands, laying siege on the citadel of power, forcing the corrupt and/or the inept to step down and winning for themselves a better life, like a Delacroix painting of the bare-breasted Liberty leading the French in storming the Bastille—with just a sprinkling of corpses lining the route."

After having done this research and thinking, my recommendation is that we move the picture to the top of the article and change the caption to say "sometimes misunderstood to be a literal depiction of the storming of the Bastille".

I'm going to do this now. This proposal, as with any other in Wikipedia, is open for debate.

--Richard 16:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved the picture to the top but I can't get an esthetically pleasing layout of the picture, the TOC and the "History of France" template. Somebody make this look right, please

--Richard 16:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well done! The caption is a bit wordy, but we can work on that. What about using the image as part of the history box? I think the French Embassy article would support that - and give the image wider exposure. Rklawton 17:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a lesson to all of us that we should rely less on our own opinions and "hit the books" more often. But I think you said that earlier in the discussion.

Yes, the caption could use some work. If the image is not next to the Bastille section, the bit about the picture being sometimes mistaken for the storming of the Bastille is not necessary. This is an article about the French Revolution not about French art.

I do think your idea of clipping Marianne to be used in the "History of France" box is a good idea. However, the Delacroix picture is not necessarily the best candidate for Marianne. There is a new French logo. Look at the bottom of this webpage http://jarle.eltelevest.no/Laetitia_Casta/Sub_Pages/Marianne.htm

I'm sure you can find this logo elsewhere. I've spent more time on this today than I can afford to so I will leave that up to you. I'm not saying that the logo is preferable to the Delacroix Liberty. I'm just saying that we should consider the options before committing to the Delacroix Liberty.

--Richard 17:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely as this picture has caused such an argument, it could be replaced with another image. Louis? The Champ de Mars Massacre? The Terror?

There are several other images that could be used.

Logo

I'd considered using the 1999 logo instead of LLTP in the History of France template. I favor LLTP because we're talking about history. Articles about modern France or 21st century French "History" would benefit from the modern logo. Those are my 2 bits. However, I leave the matter for consensus. Rklawton 17:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Caption for LLTP

68.236.1.242 trimmed (eviscerated, really) the caption for LLTP. I'm not sure if it was vandalism or just trying to shorten it but doing a hatchet job of it.

I'm OK with shortening the caption but taking out everything but the title could be a bit controversial (cf. the discussion higher up on this page). I reverted the change but I think we should discuss what the right caption should be.

--Richard 23:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the LLTP debate over? I think it is and, if it is, the Request for Comment should be terminated. --Richard 00:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

17 - 21 january 1793

I might not know everything there is to know about the french revolution but i do know this: Louis XVI was definitly not condemned to death on the 17th of january - that is only when his trial started. The actual "condemnation" (for lack of a better word) was on 20 january. He then asked the convention for a reprieve of 3 days to prepare himself for his death. This request was, however, not granted and the execution took place just after 10h00 on the 21st.

Causes

Why does nobody mention the effect that the affair of the necklace had on the outbreak of the revolution? it might have happened in 1785, but it definitly played a role. Elizej 17:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll add it as soon as the article is unprotected. It was a cause of the monarchies unpopularity as well as the fact Marie-A was Austrian.

Linguistic opression

I think that the fact that the Revolution resulted in linguistic and cultural supression ought to be expanded. Eboracum 00:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So do it. Be bold!

--Richard 15:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Bulldreck. Nothing more than any other advanced country did.

addition to aricle

there should be a section listing popular media inwhich the french revolution is a topic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Csw (talk • contribs) 28 July 2006.

I, for one, would rather remove such sections from articles than add them, but it seems they've become an accepted part of Wikipedia, so I guess that if someone has content go for it. But I think it is an embarrassment when someone comes here looking for information on a serious historic topic and ends up reading about a video game or a bad novel. - Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as long as the main article is good, it shouldn't be a problem. When the main article is substandard is when things start to become problematic. The problem with this particular topic is that there's so much to consider. A Tale of Two Cities and The Scarlet Pimpernel seem significant enough to be discussed, but getting beyond that, there's an enormous amount of material. How are we to select from among it? john k 11:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And you know if we start it, it will soon list episodes of Dr. Who, video games, an obscure comic book or two, one random joke from a sitcom, etc., none of which shed any light on the subject. - Jmabel | Talk 00:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Committee of Public Safety and Robespierre

The Committee of Public Safety came under the control of Maximilien Robespierre, and the Jacobins unleashed the Reign of Terror (1793-1794).

The Committee of Public Safety did not have a leader, and the only other two members who were always in agreement with Robespierre were Couthon and Saint-Just. I therefore find it a little extreme to state that the Committee 'came under his control.' And the Terror was hardly just a Jacobin idea; in fact, Georges Danton was advocating it for some time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.249.206.92 (talk • contribs) 4 August 2006.

That should certainly be rewritten, though I would argue that Robespierre was, for a time, the most powerful man in France. But "control" overstates the matter. - Jmabel | Talk 00:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dead links

There are several dead links to www.outfo.org, probably all intended to link to History of the French Revolution from 1789 to 1814. I couldn't find substitute links for them. Art LaPella 01:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was the Project Gutenberg text of Mignet. It can be accessed on the Internet Archive at http://web.archive.org/web/20050307193925/http://www.outfo.org/literature/pg/etext06/8hfrr10.txt, but we should see if we can find something more convenient than the Internet Archive. - Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext06/7hfrr10.txt On the Gutenberg site should be identical, I'll substitute that. - Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now changed {{Mignet}} accordingly, and replaced the inline citations with indications of what chapter in Mignet; if someone wants to follow a link, it's in the "references" section. - Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

Needs inline citations to go any further ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

The last 25 edits in the past few days have resulted in no change, just editors' labor reverting repeated vandalism. Why doesn't this page get a semi-protection from anonymous IPs? Are administrators too busy on their bulletin boards and mailing lists?--Wetman 17:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The article gets protected every once in a while (see the log for this page), but most pages won't stay that way forever. In this case, the vandalism seems to have picked up again recently, since schools have started and kids have to keep themselves busy somehow. If you think the vandalism is too rampant, report it at Requests for page protection, making snide comments at a talk page isn't very helpful. - Bobet 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know; the vandalism is pretty strong recently; would anyone have an objection if I put it up? I don't think this is a snide comment; I just want to make sure there are no objections first. -Patstuart 20:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't mind if it was protected, but there's not much point in it in the long run. This gets vandalized more often because it's a high-profile article, not because of any passing popularity or concentrated effort. It's going to get vandalized at random times pretty much all through the school year, and if it's protected, the vandals will just edit some other page that pops into their mind first, which might not be on so many people's watchlists. The only real solution would be to permanently semi-protect this article, but that's unlikely to happen (because people don't want to do that to every high-profile article, because being editable by anyone isn't always bad). - Bobet 09:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alas, I think Bobet is probably right on all points. --Wetman 16:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Bobet writes, "... because being editable by anyone isn't always bad." As for the semi-protection, I think you'd be totally justified. I think you guys nailed down this subject to an excellent degree. I'd have absolutely no business editing anything on this page. You really would have to be an expert on the subject of french history (IMHO). Anyone that shows up with new content or corrections would probably want to bring them up on the talk page first anyway. Great page, beautify done. Jeff Carr 20:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be really useful if the vandalism and the respective reverts did not show up on the history page. The history page is really helpful and useful if it shows constructive diffs of the content. Jeff Carr 19:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Date of verification of powers

This used to say "On 28 May 1789 the Abbé Sieyès moved that the Third Estate, now meeting as the Communes (English: 'Commons'), proceed with verification of its own powers". Now it says 30 May. Does someone have a citation for this? The article is churning so much (mainly with vandalism) that I cannot readily see where it came in. - Jmabel | Talk 05:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me, but I've just had a look at some books. Sieyès was a Parisian deputy, and they didn't arrive at Versailles until the third of June, according to various sources. Simon Schama then writes that on June 10th, Sieyès proposed that the deputies of the Third "send a final ultimatum to the other orders, before proceeding with [their own] roll call... it was an act of revolutionary self-authorization." Who knows where the original date came from - I suggest this is almost certainly the date we want. I'll change it now and add a reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.173.20.85 (talk • contribs) 29 October 2006.

Thanks for the change, but you don't seem to have added the reference. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Have just packed all my books into boxes, so it will have to wait. Shall do later. 203.173.20.85 16:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

June 10 the Commons, prompted by Sieyès, sent an ultimatum to the other orders; June 12 they proceeded to "verify their credentials" (whatever that entails), and when they finished on the 17th, they declared the other orders to be irrelevant and themselves the National Assembly. I've added a reference. Foraminifera 02:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Improvements: 2006

This article makes no mention of the August 1791 Declaration of Pillnitz by the Austrian and Prussian Monarchies. The declaration called on all European powers to act in concert to restore Louis XVI to his rightful authority. It predated the French declaration of war against Austria (April 1792), and is an important contributing factor to that declaration. As such, the article should include at least a mention of the declaration in the passage asserting that France declared war on Austria. I intend to make this change, unless anyone has objections. --Richard Scrivener, Centre for Arab & Islamic Studies, Australian National University 07:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this should be there. - Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a bunch of Garbage at the top of this page?

Can someone please clean this page up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.112.165.178 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't know what you are referring to, so I'm guessing it has been done already. - Jmabel | Talk 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Concept of Rights

Does this need to be considered? This would also lead to a discussion of events in St Domingue/Haiti--Mjs110 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We certainly could do that; I think it might be better in a side article (to be added to the French Revolution article series) with a paragraph or two and a {{main}} to direct people to it. We do already have Declaration of the Rights of Man, but it is rather cursory. Haitian Revolution also looks pretty lightweight. Someone could take on a pretty major project on human rights in the French Revolution. I'm sure it would get well beyond the scope of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Great Fear

Does this section risk conflating the Great Fear, which was a relatively short-lived affair, dated precisely by G Lefebvres, and the more widespread revolt in the provinces, which predated the prise de la Bastille and continued until 1792?--Mjs110 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what section you have in mind; the Great Fear is barely mentioned. We seem to have it correctly pinned in the summer of '89 (or was there an intermediate stage of the article I missed?). - Jmabel | Talk 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it again, it reads fine, without confusing matters - I've added some detail to the Great Fear instead.--Mjs110 10:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to the Russian Revolution?

The similarities are striking. Worth mentioning? -G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.66 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Wouldn't such material belong better at Revolution? --Wetman 05:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

By this answer you mean that in some sense all revolutions are strikingly similar? Well that may be the case but then a more accurate sentence would be "the French revolution has striking similarities to every other revolution in history in that they were, you know, revolutions". However it would still be unsourced... Massimamanno 19:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeline vs Subject structure

This page is constructed along a largely timeline structure, with the early events at the top of the page and the later events towards the bottom. However, the French Revolution consisted of a great many events, so to cover each event in its proper sequence requires a tiny paragraph for the event that happened at a given place in the timeline. Unfortunately, this breaks up any unified narative on a given subject. For example, the impacts on the Church is divided among several bits of the timeline.

Since we already have a Timeline page, we might do a better discussion of subjects on this page, by grouping content on each subject into discussions with overlapping times. For example, while each governmental reorganization should probably be its own subject, interactions with the KING span several and probably should be its owns section. Similar with the CHURCH, WARS, ARISTOCRACY, maybe FACTIONS, etc. The Gomm 20:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

All of those topics have potential, but I think not as an organizing principle for this article. This is the "top-level" article on the revolution, and I think the single most important thing is to give a picture of how the events unfolded. Many of these others would make good articles (or good enhancements to existing articles: for example, interactions with the king certainly belong in Louis XVI of France). A good place to work on issues of the church would be Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution; there is also Civil Constitution of the Clergy; probably we could use an article Religion in the French Revolution, and some of the material in those two articles could be refactored to that. We have French Revolutionary Wars; I'm not sure how one would do an article specifically focused on the aristocracy, but I'd be interested to see one; and right now, our nearest thing to an overview of factions is at Glossary of the French Revolution#Political groupings: certainly that has potential for expansion to an article. - Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Guillotine photo

As best I can tell, the guillotine shown in the "National Convention" section is a 20th-century German model, different in several respects from the French Revolutionary design. Is it not possible to find a photo or drawing for this article depicting a guillotine of more appropriate vintage? Richwales 07:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, do feel free to replace it with a more appropriate image if you have one. - Jmabel | Talk 00:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC