Talk:French Revolution/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

What caused the war?

“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)

Thanks for reading this so carefully. I've tried to clarify the Lede wording - the general point is that it worked for both sides for different reasons. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You wrote this but this is not true and is very problematic:

“External powers including Austria, Britain, and Prussia, sought to restore the Ancien Régime by force, while many French politicians saw war as the best way to unite the nation and preserve the revolution by exporting it to other countries.”

Austria, Britain, and Prussia didn’t want to restore the Ancien Régime. Austria didn’t like the émigrés. Austria didn’t want to wage war on France. Britain wanted to remain neutral and didn’t want to restore the Ancien Régime any more than Austria. Prussia didn’t want to restore the Ancien Régime any more than Austria and Britain.

The king wanted war. He asked the assembly to declare war, and it wasn’t to “preserve the revolution by exporting it to other countries”.

Lafayette wanted war too.

What does this mean, “exporting” the “revolution”?

What about Saint-Domingue and the others colonies? Did the revolutionaries want to “export” the “revolution” there too? Wordyhs (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

(1) "Austria, Britain, and Prussia didn’t want to restore the Ancien Régime. Austria didn’t like the émigrés. Austria didn’t want to wage war on France. Britain wanted to remain neutral and didn’t want to restore the Ancien Régime any more than Austria. Prussia didn’t want to restore the Ancien Régime any more than Austria and Britain."

I'd like to see a Source for this statement. Given there were English-financed Prussian and Austrian armies seeking to invade France in 1792, it seems odd to argue they weren't interested in restoring the Ancien Regime.

(2) What I said was "...many French politicians saw war as the best way to unite the nation and preserve the revolution by exporting it to other countries.” For which I have provided a reference. That doesn't mean "all" French politicians - Louis had his own reasons for supporting war, largely because he viewed it as an opportunity to regain control. I haven't gone into this in detail as the article doesn't require it.

(3) I'm not sure why "exporting the revolution to other countries" is proving quite so hard to decipher, but I'll add "European" to make it clearer. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Robinvp11. I believe that the fact that Austria, Britain, and Prussia did want to restore the Ancien Régime is completely obvious, undeniable on an immediate level. This is because these were empires governed by monarchies, as was the Ancien Régime itself, and the French Revolution had just ended a well established monarchy and decapitated its king. These traditional empire holding monarchies were also long-time political allies. So the immediate basic fact that Austria, Britain, and Prussia did want to restore the Ancien Régime in France is completely obvious, undeniable. But the sources all say that very clearly, I believe. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Issue about taxation in the "Causes" section

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:

1. it is an oversimplification of the source material, which actually does not say that (for example, on this specific topic, the source says : "Even without clear empirical evidence, one can surmise this was less than many commoners paid, yet in the cahiers de doléances, the nobles complained about taxes as loudly as the commoners - though many believe this was partly a smokescreen to limit efforts to increase their taxes").
2. the source, although interesting, is not an article written by a professional historian : wouldn't it be more logical to use the sources of the source ? For instance, Joël Félix or Gail Bossenga (The Origins of the French Revolution, From Deficit to Deluge: The Origins of the French Revolution)...
3. in addition, many of the books/articles cited in the source are quite old, which puts the claim of "more recent work" into perspective. In comparison, Jean-Clément Martin (actually a leading historian specialising in the subject and still active) explains in the new edition of "Nouvelle histoire de la révolution française" (originally written in 2012 and with a new edition in 2019) between pages 88 and 105 that while the monarchy tried to levy taxes on everyone, including the nobility and the clergy, many differences, inequalities and exemptions remained between the different orders.

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)

The wording wasn't intended to suggest "equal sharing" of the tax burden, only that the nobility and clergy weren't exempt. As remains the case today, the problem was that the rich found it easier to evade payment and take advantage of systemic weaknesses in the system.

I don't think this is very different from what Martin is saying but I will tighten up the wording, which is a bit clumsy.

Re Sources in general, a lot of these have been retained from the original article and updates are always welcome. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2023

dates for the topic im studing are wrong! Ghjrtyfhg (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2023

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)

 Fixed small jars tc 13:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2023

Please I want to change the first sentence of the page as it is wrong. KS 140 (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Historiography

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)

Long-term impact

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)

Slavery and the colonies

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)

Recently removed paragraph on American vs. French constitutions

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. 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. References References Works cited Fremont-Barnes, Gregory (2007). Encyclopedia of the Age of Political Revolutions and New Ideologies, 1760–1815. Greenwood. ISBN 978-0-313-04951-4. Jefferson, Thomas (1903). Ford, Paul (ed.). The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. XII: Correspondence and Papers 1808–1816 (2010 ed.). Cosimo Classics. ISBN 978-1-61640-215-0.

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:

This entire paragraph represents original research. The first half presents a Wikipedia author's own interpretation of a primary source. The second half ('French Revolution viewed as starting point') is an unsourced assertion. The concluding sentence has no relation to the rest of the paragraph, which is meant to be a discussion of intent.

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)

The reasons for removing the content seem weak (if you claim a direct quote has been wrongly "interpreted", then provide an alternative, a three line para with two specific references hardly constitutes "original research" etc), but based on previous interactions with this editor, I'm wary of investing time on it.

I'll dig out the Fremont Barnes when I have a moment. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Much of this section (on the creation of the constitution) was written in response to edits made by 021120x. These argued it was largely a copy of the American version, a view held by a small minority of conservative American historians. Most expert opinion view them as fundamentally different, both in intent and detail.

As much of this content exists simply to refute the view of a specific editor. I'd prefer to simplify the article by removing any discussion as to who was responsible for its creation, since its largely irrelevant to anyone else.

Let me have a go at that. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

"Largely a copy of the American version" as minority view: yes, that matches my impression as well, and it has strong echoes in the Rfc about causes, largely about the same dispute which had a very clear result. The recent removal of content seems to me to echo the opinion that was widely rejected in that Rfc. That was two years ago, and perhaps they'd like to try again; however given the massive literature about causes of the French Revolution and the lack of any historiographical bombshell in the last two years, any new Rfc would inevitably reach the same conclusion, imho. If you wanted to simply restore the removed paragraph, I'd be fine with that, and I think it aligns well with the Rfc's conclusion. Conversely, if there are quibbles with the way the paragraph was worded before the removal, we could entertain those objections here and see whether some compromise wording could be found that still adheres to the majority view of historians.

If you do find Fremont-Barnes, maybe just add some key portion of it to the |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)

Irrespective of the Rfc, a lot of the content in this section (and some elsewhere) could be moved into the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. I'd prefer to do that, unless you have a major objection; I don't think we need to spend much time on refuting a minority viewpoint. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That sounds fine by me; good plan. Mathglot (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request:

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)

I'm not sure where this appears in the article - could you highlight the relevant section, I must be missing it. Thanks. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

"with the Committee of Public Safety, headed by Maximilien Robespierre. Attempts to eliminate his opponents sparked the Reign of Terror, with an estimated 16,000 killed by the time it ended in July 1794." It appears in the introductory paragraphs. Another noticing is that Robespierre did not "spark the reign of terror" or even really "attempt to eliminate his opponents". Many of his personal opponents were left alone by him (i.e. 60 or so Girondins) CherryPigeon (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the Lead, but Robespierre was President of both the Convention and Jacobin Clubs, and until he stopped attending their meetings, directed many of the policies put forward by the Committee, including the counter-revolutionary terror. The Festival of the Supreme Being was entirely his idea, as were the price controls enforced by revolutionary militia which led to massive food shortages. So he did play a leadership role, even if only for a limited period. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2023

in the crisis part remove thanks to tangqo DecentInnocentttt (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

dog's breakfast

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)

I've fixed it and made some other changes to the section for clarity and accuracy. I've added citations for the new material. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. May the road rise up to meet you and the wind be ever at your back. Herostratus (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thank you for your contribution! NotAGenious (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_d%C3%A9mographique_de_la_France Fancyfactfull (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You can't use one Wikipedia article as a Source for another, as I'm sure you must appreciate. If you can provide another third party Source (as done here), then let me know and I'll update it. Robinvp11 (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

the source of the french article is from insee the french National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, i understand if you can't do nothing thank you anyway 79.24.206.119 (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

i was the one that reply but i was not logged,sorry Fancyfactfull (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I could include these figures as a FN, although since the first official census was not conducted until 1793, we have to allow for some variation in what must be estimates. The point is the relative growth in population of between 35 to 40% in less than a century, and the strain this placed on the economy.

Out of curiosity, do you know how the Institute defines "Metropolitan France" - this might be another factor, as France's southern borders were not fixed until 1860. Robinvp11 (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Metropolitan France is all of France's European territories including Corsica, savoy, and Nice, the territories that France didn't have at the time were only savoy nice some small cities in Alsace, in 1789 savoy had 440,000 people, and Nice less than 120,000 Mulhouse and others little cities in Alsace lightly populated so the figure would still be 28 million from the 28,600,000, source of the numbers are easily accessible in internet in french articles Fancyfactfull (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the numbers; they're estimates, so we might as well align with the official figures :) Robinvp11 (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2023

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heart ^(talk) 00:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming the request relates to the section on Jacobin ideology, which I haven't tried to edit. While I agree it is very biased, I'm not convinced any of it really belongs in an article about the course of the French Revolution. There are separate (and far more comprehensive) Wikipedia pages on both Jacobins (as an ideology) and the Jacobin clubs. So I would suggest removing it. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I was already working on a rewrite of this section. I have expanded it to cover revolutionary ideologies and tried to make it more neutral. There is a large literature on the question of revolutionary ideologies and I think the topic is sufficiently important to warrant a section of its own. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this article (which is on the course of the French Revolution) is trying to cover too much already - providing links means readers can and are guided to other more detailed articles on specific topics, without the need to double up.

If you're rewriting this section, surely you should start by updating the detailed articles on the Clubs and Jacobin ideology first, then provide a summary for this one (if appropriate). There are links to these articles here already.

I would argue the same principle applies to the recent update on Slavery and the Colonies. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I thought about that, but child articles are supposed to be on the specific topic of a section of the parent article. There is no main article specifically on French revolutionary ideology and, as far as I cacould see, no main article specifically on slavery and colonialism in the French revolution. There's an article on French colonies throughout history, one on slavery in France, one on the Haitian revolution etc. So the process should be to develop the section on French revolutionary ideologies and then spin them off into separate articles if they get too big. Given the trend of recent historical scholarship, I would argue that as a general article on the French revolution, this one doesn't adequately cover enough topics. It should be a summary article on the main topics of historical interest with more detailed child articles developed later. As long as the stuff of most interest to general readers is at the top, I don't think the article risks becoming too long. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"As long as the stuff of most interest to general readers is at the top, I don't think the article risks becoming too long". Please note Wikipedia defines length as the number of words in the article overall, not where they're located.

Surely one way of dealing with the current dispute is to create the relevant articles if they're missing. Maybe you and Warshy could use them to co-operate on presenting different perspectives, then summarise here. Rather than the other way round, which doesn't seem to be working. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

French Revolution and Ideologies

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)

I, for one, concur with all your points above. What was added is one particular view/thesis about the event, whereas there are hundreds of different variations in the RS literature. One point that may not be developed enough in the current version of the article is the importance of the French Revolution for the development of Marxism and Socialism in Europe throughout the second half of the 19th and the 20th centuries. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

ok 72.68.33.217 (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello all,

the idea that the historiography of the French Revolution is essentially a "Western" point of view was made in Michel-Rolph Trouillot's book Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History, and all historians who have written about the Haitian Revolution, such as Laurent Dubois, author of Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution, agree with that.

In his book, Trouillot wrote: “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 the “historiographic tradition” of the Western countries, however, there is not a single point of view.

There is the Marxist one (the Marxist ideology), represented by such authors as Mathiez, Lefebvre, Soboul.

There is the French republican nationalist one. In Interpreting the French Revolution Furet wrote what follows about it:

“Mother of the political culture into which all of us are born, the Revolution allows everyone to look for filiations. But all those histories, which have bitterly fought each other for the last two hundred years in the name of the origins of their opposition, in fact share a common ground: they are all histories in quest of identity. No Frenchman living in the second half of the twentieth century can perceive the French Revolution from the outside. One cannot practise ethnology in so familiar a landscape. The event is so fundamentally, so tyrannically rooted in contemporary French political consciousness that any attempt to consider it from an intellectual ‘distance’ is immediately seen as hostility—as if identification, be it a claim to descent or rejection, were inevitable.” (p. 10)

What Furet say is that, Frenchmen don’t want historians “from the outside” to interfere in the history of their revolution.

French republican nationalism see in the French Revolution an exceptional one. This is the ideology of the exception française. See for example Valentine Brunet:

« C’est à travers l’étude du lien entre les Révolutions d’Amérique et de France que le renouvellement de l’histoire révolutionnaire allait s’imposer. Dépassant la notion d’« exception française », chère à Michel Vovelle, des chercheurs ont avancé l’hypothèse selon laquelle la décennie 1789-1799 s’inscrirait dans un mouvement plus large de révoltes et de troubles révolutionnaires de part et d’autre de l’Atlantique. » (https://journals.openedition.org/lrf/2912)

Valentine Brunet speak of the « francocentrisme » of the French historiography.

The integration of the French Revolution in the revolutions of the Atlantic world was made in Robert R. Palmer’s book, The Age of the Democratic Revolution.

Here is what David Armitage wrote in the introduction of the last edition:

“Palmer’s masterpiece sprang from the conjunction of two revolutionary moments, past and present. The first was what he called the late eighteenth-century “Revolution of Western Civilization” in Europe and North America. The second was the great revolution of his own times in Asia, Africa, and Latin America... [...] Palmer argued that the goal of both was equality, a fundamental value that had first been widely elaborated between 1760 and 1800, with lasting legacies for succeeding centuries:

“All revolutions since 1800, in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa,” he wrote at the very end of The Age of the Democratic Revolution, “have learned from the eighteenth-century Revolution of Western Civilization.” That judgment might seem guilty of almost every current scholarly sin—Eurocentrism, essentialism, teleology, diffusionism—but it captured the essence of Palmer’s endeavor: to understand the present through the past with the perspective of the longue durée.”

Armitage also wrote:

“Its omission of the Haitian Revolution and of Iberian America—not to mention the absence of the enslaved, women, and much cultural history—implied that Palmer was afraid to acknowledge the truly radical elements of the age of revolution, that he was blind to its exclusions and complacent about its failed promises.”

The Eurocentrism and Francocentrism of the historiography is acknowledged by Antonino De Francesco, in "Historicizing the French Revolution". De Francesco wrote that “the revolution [take] more than one broadside for having long been the ideological support of European dominance...” and “nobody would deny that the inattention shown towards the colonial world – starting with the problem of slavery and the revolt of the black population of Saint-Domingue, which interacted so greatly with the political mechanics of the Hexagon – has weighed, and weighed heavily, on a broader approach to the significance of 1789.”

This is what I tried to summarize in "French Revolution and Ideologies"

I hope everybody agree on that. Wordyhs (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

As I explained, a major problem with your contribution was that it was written in an "essay" style giving your POV on how to interpret the historiography of the Revolution. It was quite sweeping and contentious to say the least. Please read the policy on WP:NPOV and well as the other policy documents I linked above. If an author gives an overarching interpretation of the relevant historiography you need to attribute that to the that author with a full citation, without giving undue weight to that interpretation compared with the many thousands of others. You also need to check whether you are just rewriting information which is already in the article. The Historiography section already talks about Marxist/Jacobin, Liberal and nationalist-conservative interpretations of the Revolution, about the historiography of the slave revolts, and the recent trans-Atlantic interpretations etc. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere did I give my opinion or POV. I have only given facts.

That the historiography of the French Revolution is essentially a "Western" viewpoint and that the Haitian Revolution was "silenced" by this historiography, as Trouillot puts it in Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History, is a fact, not my "interpretation" of the historiography of the Revolution.

Are you opposing this fact? On what ground? What are yours references for doing so?

That the historiographic tradition of the Western countries is not a single point of view is another fact.

Are you opposing this fact? On what ground? What are yours references for doing so?

That the French Revolution was integrated into different ideologies as an essential part of them is a fact.

Are you opposing this fact? On what ground? What are yours references for doing so?

That Marxism is one of this ideology is a fact.

Are you opposing this fact? On what ground? What are yours references for doing so?

Etc.

I gave facts and I gave references for these facts: Antonino de Francesco (Historicizing the French Revolution), Trouillot, Palmer, Furet, Valentine Brunet, Armitage, Marvin R. Cox, Gordon, Hunt and Weiler.

Are you contesting these authors and the quotes I gave? On what ground? What are your references to do so?

It’s you who impose your POV, not me. Wordyhs (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Please note the Lead summarises the main events, not different interpretations of what they meant. And it cannot be used as an attempt to do an "end run" around a dispute lower down. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Wordyhs Another editor moved your more recent contribution to the article on Historiography of the French Revolution. I further edited it in order to try to fix some of the problems previously pointed out to you, and in order to better integrate it into that article. If you have any concerns with the way I edited it, please take them up on the Talk page of that article. Also please note that you don't have a consensus for the lengthy additions you have made to this article, and any further attempts to add the same or similar information here might be seen as disruptive. Please read policy on disruptive editing as well as the other policies I have previously directed your attention to. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Alleged Silencing the Haitian Revolution and the Imperialism of the French Revolution

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)

We've had this discussion several times already. This particular article is a summary of major events and (short) analyses of key aspects of the French Revolution. There is an entirely separate and detailed article on the Historiography of the French Revolution; as far as I'm aware, no one is stopping you inserting (properly sourced) views into that. From a quick review of its edit history, you don't seem to have taken that opportunity, but I might be wrong.

I'm not getting involved in the Historiography debate (personally, I don't think we even need the current level of detail), but the Lead is supposed to be a clear and concise summary of the events detailed in the article, not a commentary. Why not read Wikipedia guidelines on writing a good Lead?

"I can see that in the Lede and elsewhere, the same concealment of the Haitian Revolution and of the imperialist dimension of the French Revolution occurs."

(1) The current Lead does NOT claim “...France is a color blind country with an “emancipatory history"", or anything approximating such a statement. Are you asking that it include a rebuttal of a claim that doesn't appear in it? That doesn't make any sense, but more importantly, how would its inclusion make the Lead more balanced?

(2) Two years ago, another editor argued strenuously for a paragraph in the Lead arguing the French Revolution was both inspired by, and intellectually indebted to the American Revolution. That too was left out because it is not a FACT, but a subjective INTERPRETATION, (in this case, one restricted to a (very) small subset of American conservatives).

So (a) you are not being victimised, and (b) if you feel your views are being unfairly ignored, then take it to arbitration. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I can read this in the Lead:

“...many French politicians saw war as the best way to unite the nation and preserve the revolution by exporting it to other countries. These factors resulted in the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars in April 1792...”

This is the POV of the "French politicians", not that of the countries invaded by French armies.

There is no mention of the war again the slaves or the abolition of slavery in the colonies; and to say “exporting [the revolution] to other countries” is to take a French POV, not the POV of the countries invaded. Wordyhs (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm frustrated but unsurprised that having invested time and patience in providing a reasonable response to your complaint, you've simply chosen to ignore all of it.

"...many French politicians saw war as the best way to unite the nation and preserve the revolution by exporting it to other countries. These factors resulted in the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars in April 1792...”

This is the POV of the "French politicians", not that of the countries invaded by French armies.

That's an extremely partial interpretation of "POV", but if it's all you've got, I'll take this content out. Perhaps you can respond to the points made in my original response, otherwise I'm going to leave it. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You wrote the "Alleged Silencing the Haitian Revolution and the Imperialism of the French Revolution". You added "alleged" to what I wrote.

Do you dispute what the two Haitian historians I quoted, Michel-Rolph Trouillot and Marlene Daut, wrote?

Manuel Covo and Megan Maruschke made the following observation in 2021, in the presentation of The French Revolution as an Imperial Revolution:

“Attempts to reframe the Age of Revolutions as imperial in nature have not fully integrated the French Revolution.”

That's what I'm saying, and so far it's what I can see in the Lead and elsewhere, for example, in "Role of Ideology," "French Revolution Wars," and "Historiography." Wordyhs (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Perhaps you can respond to the points made in my original response, otherwise I'm going to leave it." Robinvp11 (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no attempt to "silence" the Haitian revolution. This article already discusses the Haitian revolution in detail, perhaps too much detail, here. There is also an entire article on the Haitian Revolution which also discusses its historiography. I suggest your time would be more productively spent in improving that article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:09, 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)

I for one, am behind all the edits done here on this issue by Robinvp11 and by Aemilius Adolphin. The issue is already described and summarized enough for this page in the "colonies" section. You can also help improve the other article as Adolphin is suggesting. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:34, 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)

I think we disagree on the alleged "silencing," and on the alleged POV. In our opinion the issue is not being silenced, and the article is carefully following what all RS say on the subject. So, you have no support from your allegations, other that yourself, and no support for the POV issue in this article, I think, as a majority of other editors disagree with you. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:28, 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 think you've been treated with great patience, given that so far all you've done is say exactly the same thing over and over again, whilst casting aspersions on any editor who disagrees with you.

There is no point responding to your criticisms when it looks like you don't even bother to read them. If you think you've been treated unfairly, ask for arbitration as I've now suggested on four separate occasions. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:22, 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)

French Revolutionary Wars

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)

These Monarchical Imperial powers continued waging was against France until they finally achieved their original intent: the removal of Napoleon from power in 1815, and the restoration of the Ancien Régime with Luis XVIII. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems to ignore (a) the August 1791 Declaration of Pilnitz (b) Austrian and Austrian-sponsored emigre troop movements in the Netherlands prior to 1792, and (c) that the declaration of war in April 1792 was a ploy by pro-monarchy deputies to increase Louis XVI's personal popularity. Plus I'm pretty sure this exact point was raised and discussed a while back. Robinvp11 (talk) 20:27, 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)

I don't have a problem with these points, but it's only one possible interpretation, and leaves out a lot. Discussing alternative views and motives (eg like the USSR in the 1920s, exporting the Revolution was seen as one way to preserve it against the hostility of outside powers, political and social divisions within the Batavian Republic make it hard to issue blanket statements about how the Dutch felt) would take too long, and I'm not sure we'd be any further down the line once we'd finished.

So I have made changes to the Lead, which I hope will keep everyone happy. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Financial and political crisis

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)

Ideas, values and institutions

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)

This is now getting silly. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Causes

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)

Having done a lot of work on this section, I object to its removal, particularly given the Sources used are largely from specialist articles on the topics discussed, rather than generalised histories like the Oxford handbook. I also don't consider the revised content more relevant or informative.

Please tell me specifically which parts of this content you consider (a) Unsourced or not supported by the Sources quoted or (b) "contradicted by the most recent scholarly research", and I will address them. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Between 1700 and 1789, the French population grew from an estimated 21 to 28 million, while Paris alone had over 600,000 inhabitants, of whom roughly one third had no regular work. [This is an interesting article, but as far as I can see nowhere on the cited page or in the entire article does it talk about French population growth, the population of Paris or the proportion without regular work.]

The figures for total population growth come from Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (the amendment was raised earlier on this TP by another editor). I will check Garrioch

Food production failed to keep up with these numbers, and whilst wages increased by 22% between 1770 and 1790, prices rose by 65% in the same period, [Source is Hufton 1983. Later research shows this is wrong. Population grew by 22.5 to 28.5 over the period 1715-89. Agricultural output grew by 20-60% over the same period. The source is Jessene (2013) p. 35. Hufton was fine for his time but much more research on this has been done since 1983. ] which many blamed on government inaction. [This is true but source doesnt support it. Tilly's quote is from 17th century England.]

The relevant figures are that wages rose by 22%, while food prices increased by 65% - it makes no mention of increase in food production (and let's be honest, 20-60% is a "range" so wide, its practically a guess). In addition, one of Hufton's points was poor infrastructure meant even when harvests were good, getting food to the right market was a problem. I left it out, because it seemed pretty lengthy but I've changed the wording to "supply"

Combined with a series of poor harvests, by 1789 the result was a rural peasantry with nothing to sell, and an urban proletariat whose purchasing power had collapsed [Source (Tilly 1983) doesnt use term proletariat (a Marxist category long discredited as anachronistic) and is only talking about 1788-89 crisis, not about an alleged long-term situation where population growth outstrips agricultural output].

If you object to proletariat on ideological grounds, I've replaced it with "working class" (an easy fix, that doesn't need a complete rewrite).

High levels of state debt, which acted as a drag on the wider economy, are often attributed to the 1778–1783 Anglo-French War. However, one economic historian argues "neither [its] level in 1788, or previous history, can be considered an explanation for the outbreak of revolution in 1789". In 1788, the ratio of debt to gross national income in France was 55.6%, compared to 181.8% in Britain, and although French borrowing costs were higher, the percentage of revenue devoted to interest payments was roughly the same in both countries. [This is bizarre. The high debt was indeed mostly caused by the Anglo-French War, but no modern historian argues that level of debt alone caused the revolution. It is a straw man argument. If we are trying to be more concise, why highlight one argument by one historian? And why is Britain the magic comparison? We are talking about French debt in the context of French institutions. My sentence is much better and belongs in the Financial crisis section. If you want me to quote more sources for it I can give you 6 or 7 good ones.]

First of all, this article is for the general reader, and (like Versailles causing WWII) many people seem to believe it (the suggestion appeared in the article on the American Revolution, until I removed it) so it's worth refuting. Second, the whole point of this section is the problems were systemic in nature; the comparison to Britain (the major European financial power, which fought the same very expensive war) is to make that point

The problem lay in the assessment and collection of the taxes used to fund government expenditure. Rates varied widely from one region to another, were often different from the official amounts, and collected inconsistently. Complexity, as much as the financial burden, caused resentment among all taxpayers; although the nobility paid significantly less than other classes, they complained just as much. [This, (Chanel, 2015) is an excellent article, but we already say elsewhere that the tax system was inefficient and complex. The key problem, as the article itself states, is that the tax burden mainly fell on peasants. Nobles and clergy paid much less tax, and they resisted reforms that would make them pay more unless they got real political benefits in return. It's also WP:OR and WP:synthesis to link this article to the previous one because it implies that the "real cause" of the Revolution wasn't debt financing of the War but rather the complexity of the tax system. However, this article explicilty states that the debt crisis was a real problem. It is NOT saying that the problem would have been solved if the tax system was less complex. It also fails to mention that a tax system geared to agriculture failed to pick up the new wealth created in finance and overseas trade. These points are all made in the Financial and Political crisis section. Why have another, distorted, explanation of the financial crisis here?]

Attempts to simplify the system were blocked by the regional Parlements which controlled financial policy. The resulting impasse in the face of widespread economic distress led to the calling of the Estates-General, which became radicalised by the struggle for control of public finances. [The parlements didn't control financial policy, they could try to make themselves a nuisance by not registering edicts. The king was then free to force them through, as Louis XV and XVI did on several occasions. My wording is better.].

This isn't what Weir says and if this was the case, then why didn't Louis just do it?

Although willing to consider reforms, Louis XVI often backed down when faced with opposition from conservative elements within the nobility. [This is true, and I say it above. The problem is that the Source Doyle 2018 p 48 doesnt say this, or anything like it.] The court became the target for popular anger, particularly Queen Marie-Antoinette, who was viewed as a spendthrift Austrian spy, and blamed for the dismissal of 'progressive' ministers like Jacques Necker. For their opponents [whose opponents? Weasel words], Enlightenment ideas on equality and democracy provided an intellectual framework for dealing with these issues, while the 1774 American Revolution was seen as confirmation of their practical application. [Source Doyle 2018 p. 73-4 has nothing to do with this. My sources do and the wording is better]].

I appreciate the efforts you have made to make this article more concise, but I think a bigger problem is that the content often doesn't match the citations in which case the onus is on you to show they are accurate. Also please note that the policy on reliable sources specifically states that in questions of scholarship the consensus of recent reliable sources carries more weight than old sources. Also general histories usually reflect a synthesis of specialist articles that have stood up to scrutiny and are generally preferred. Please have a look at my comments and the sources and I am sure that we can get some agreed wording. Please also have another look at the structure. I think mine is more logical in the way it introduces information. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Robinvp11Have you had a chance to check the issues I have raised? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

See above - a lot of these (in my opinion) could have been done by simply altering a few words, rather than deleting content I spent a lot of time researching. Many of the Sources you query (ie Doyle) were there already, I simply incorporated them but the points they support are fairly non-controversial, so that doesn't seem to justify a complete rewrite. I've taken this page off my Watchlist for now, so make your changes and I may come back in a few months. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to incorporate as much of the previous material that was supported by the cited sources. I have summarised some of it for the sake of space. Happy to discuss when you return to this page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Estates General of 1789

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)

Same objections as above, plus I think you miss the point. This section is not concerned so much with the process of elections, but the make up. If there are parts that need improving, let's discuss but a blanket rewrite is not collaboration. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The Estates-General contained three separate bodies, the First Estate representing 100,000 clergy, the Second the nobility, and the Third the "commons". Since each met separately, and any proposals had to be approved by at least two, the First and Second Estates could outvote the Third despite representing less than 5% of the population. [I didn't delete this, I moved it to a more logical place in the Financial and Political crisis section.]

Although the Catholic Church in France owned nearly 10% of all land, as well as receiving annual tithes paid by peasants, more than two-thirds of the clergy lived on incomes putting them close to the poverty line [Source Schama. Doesn't say this. My summary is an accurate reflection of what he, and other sources cited actually say. And there was no such thing as a poverty line in 18th century France.] Many of the 303 deputies returned in 1789 were thus closer in sympathy to the poor than those elected for the Third Estate, where voting was restricted to male French taxpayers, aged 25 or over. The vast majority of the 610 Third Estate deputies were lawyers, government officials, businessmen, or wealthy land owners. [Source Doyle, doesn't say this. In fact he says pretty much the opposite. My summary is accurate.]

The Second Estate elected 291 deputies, representing about 400,000 men and women, who owned about 25% of the land and collected seigneurial dues and rents from their tenants. Like the clergy, this was not a uniform body, and was divided into the noblesse d'épée, or traditional aristocracy, and the noblesse de robe. The latter derived rank from judicial or administrative posts and tended to be hard-working professionals, who dominated the regional parlements and were often intensely socially conservative. [source Schama doesn't say this. "Hard working professionals" indeed!]

To assist delegates, each region completed a list of grievances, known as Cahiers de doléances. Although they contained ideas that would have seemed radical only months before, most supported the monarchy, and assumed the Estates-General would agree to financial reforms, rather than fundamental constitutional change. [Citation is Doyle's Very short history p. 38. It's actually p. 39 and says this: "An amazing range of grievances and aspirations were articulated in what amounted to the first public opinion poll of modern times. Suddenly changes seemed possible that only a few months earlier had been the stuff of dreams; and the tone of the cahiers made clear that many electors actually expected them to happen through the agency of the Estates-General." Nothing about radicalism, support of the monarchy, or fundamental constitutional change, My summary of the Cahiers is more accurate..]

The lifting of press censorship allowed widespread distribution of political writings, mostly written by liberal members of the aristocracy and upper middle-class. Abbé Sieyès, a political theorist and priest elected to the Third Estate, argued it should take precedence over the other two as it represented 95% of the population. [This is all in the wrong place. I moved it to the section on Financial and political crisis because that's where it logically belongs. The political writings were part of the political ferment leading up to the Estates General. And if this is relevant to this section, why not the information about how these delegates were elected?]

On 5 May 1789, the Estates-General convened at Versailles, a location seen as an attempt to control their debates. [Says who?] As was customary, each Estate assembled in separate rooms, whose furnishings and opening ceremonies deliberately emphasised the superiority of the First and Second Estates. The Second Estate ruled only landowners could sit as deputies, excluding the immensely popular Comte de Mirabeau. [Source is Schama. He doesn't say this. It was the local Estate of Provence that had this rule. Mirabeau was elected as a rep of the Third Estate for Aix.]

To prevent the Third Estate being outvoted, Sieyès proposed deputies be approved by the Estates-General as a whole, instead of each Estate verifying its own. [It wasn't Sieyes who proposed this, it was the reps from Brittany and the Dauphiné. See Doyle p. 102] Since their legitimacy would derive from the Estates-General, they would be forced to continue as one body. Sitting as the Estates-General, on 10 June members of the Third Estate began verifying their own deputies, a process completed on 17 June. [No they didn't. They sat as the Third Estate and began verifying the members of the Third Estate on 12 June. On 17 June they declared themselves a National Assembly. per Doyle. 103-105] Two days later, they were joined by over 100 members of the clergy, [This is true, it was the 19th. Scharma p. 355] and declared themselves the National Assembly. The remaining deputies from the other two Estates were invited to join, but the Assembly made it clear they intended to legislate with or without their support. [The invitation to join was much earlier, as I wrote.]

In an attempt to prevent the Assembly from convening, Louis XVI closed the Salle des États, claiming he needed it for a royal speech. [Unsourced and untrue. My version is an accurate reflection of the sources.] On 20 June, the Assembly met in a tennis court outside Versailles, and swore not to disperse until a new constitution had been agreed. [This is true. Schama p. 359.] Messages of support poured in from Paris and other cities; by 27 June, they had been joined by the majority of the First Estate, plus forty-seven members of the Second, and Louis backed down. [No he didnt. He offered some concessions but ordered the Estates General to meet in their separate orders the next day. Schama p. 362] Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I have reinstated most of my earlier changed as the previous version was inaccurate in many respects and was not supported by the cited sources. Happy to discuss further. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Eurocentrism in the historiography of the French Revolution

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 French Revolution is first of all a French phenomenon, because it occurred in France primarily and not somewhere else (though it had after-effects in multiple places in the world). And second of all, it is primarlily an European phenomenon, because France is in Europe, and not somewhere else. Therefore, a French and and an European view of the phenomenon being the first views presented in the Wikipedia page is completely logical and rational, and there is nothing to be changed in that respect. Only my own two cents' worth. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be largely about the French historiography, where the tradition was, probably still is, essentially that the FR was a good thing, despite..... The dominant Anglophone tradition, by contrast, has always been that the FR was at bottom a bad thing, or at least a thing that got well out of hand. In this tradition, the Haitian Revolution was usually played up with some satisfaction (if not always in colossal detail), as demonstrating French hypocisy. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)