Talk:French Revolution

Consequences/Influences

Shouldnt there be a column about the consequences of the French Revolution? It was a major event not only in France but also in Europe, and its consequences stretched much further then just the napoleonic wars. 77.250.25.165 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Influences; who said history doesn't repeat itself rather it rhymes. Under Financial Crisis it would be useful to link in the disastrous influences of the British economist John Law in France [1]and then look at why Dominique de Villepin on 19 April 2009 says there is a current risk of revolution in France http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_MDZmMEpgY. Perhaps if Britain rather than France had memories of John Law then Britian would not currently be engaged in Quantitative Easing (printing money)[2].It would be an excellent addition, especially in today's world, to expand a little more on the Financial History behind the French Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.30.165 (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

epic march? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.44.144 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Error

In the "National Constituent Assembly (1789–1791)" section, under "Storming of the Bastille," paragraph four, it should read: "cries of Vive le Roi were changed to Vive la Nation." It says the opposite right now and is confusing. Simple mistake! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.107.100 (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Another error can be observed under the heading "National Assembly", where on the final line "Assembly-line" can be read, rather than "Assembly". Please change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.134.109 (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In the opening section, immediately under the "French Revolution" banner, third paragraph, there is mention of the French Revolution being the cause for the invention of "Total War". If you follow the link from "Total War", the article begins by discussing the use of the concept long before the French Revolution, and then states that the French Revolution "...reintroduced some of the concepts...", rather then invented "Total War". These two articles are contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlideStrife (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Total war article is completely unreferenced until the WWII period, so I would take the historical section of that article with a large grain of salt. That being said, as the claim in this article is unreferenced as well, I don't know whether this claim is true either. I have placed a "Citation needed" tag on it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammar error

Could someone write something about Brett Favre in this article or maybe Blazing Saddles? "Warfare involving every other major European powers" should read "warfare involving every other major European power." Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eme2512 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Counter-Revolution rewrite

Hi all, I will be working on this section, please come and join me at User:Hrcolyer/Wikiproject_France/French_Revolution/Counter-Revolution, so as not to clog up this page with notes. From the work there I will be working on the section and possibly separate articles as well. Do help, comment as you can/want. Hrcolyer (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

References in general

Hopefully I can help out with this article, because I think it seems the general consensus is that it needs a little 'cleaning up.' If anyone has any suggestions as to what parts could use a clean-up, let me know and I'll try to improve upon it. rs09985 (talk) 2:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Rs09985 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm great to see you here! I tried to get momentum around this a few months back; but, wasn't able. Great, generally, IMO the entire article needs to be rewritten; much is from the 1911 Brittanica. I rewrote the Financial Crisis & Estates General sections; but was unable to continue further. I'd like to start working back into it, if we can get a collaboration going. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Start Date

For the actual revolution the start date has always been 1789, not really circa. There isn't much debate when it physically started. The mindset of the people of France, and the nature of the 'true' beginning of the revolution...well I won't even get into that. But, would it be better if we dated it as most historians do, which would be (1789-99)rs09985 (talk)

In total agreement with you: French Revolution 1789-1799. The actual date is the day of the Storming of the Bastille: 14 July 1789. What happened before belongs to *causes and events* leading to Revolution.

This being written between bûche de Noël & champagne, Joyeux Noël to you Frania W. (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree. My proposal: treat this article as a survey of the French Revolution; from a broad perspective. This would include mentioning the causes, etc; but, I agree we should being, in earnest, with "C'est une révolte? Non sire, c'est une Révolution" Lazulilasher (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a great quote. In his journal for July 14th, he wrote nothing for the day. I bet his face was red when the guard informed him of that little mishap at the Bastille.Rs09985 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

pop my two cents in here. revisionist historians, such as Francois furet and william doyle, have dated the french revolution as beginning with the council of notables in 1787. as this was the first break with the absolutist principle of all sovereignty being vested in the king. french revolution has a convoluted historiography and a circa date might actually be more accurate in terms of the long standing debate on its origins. again, my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.232.166 (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Colonizing

Anyone know how we gather-up and improve articles around colonizing? like Castorland_Company (during or just after the French Revolution). -- Mjquin_id (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

it ended in 1815 as did the napoleonic era —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.60.113 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, almost all historians agree that the revolution ended in 1799, when Napoleon seized power from the Directory. The French First Empire ended in 1815. Rs09985 (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with Rs09985. Napoleon did not crown himself Emporor before 1804, but he was a Monarch in all but name.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

In the second paragraph of the "Causes" section it says "2 billion livres" when it should read "two billion livres." Why is this page protected???

This page is protected because of constant vandalism, like all articles pertaining to the History of France. It's as simple as that! Some articles that are not protected and should, get vandalised up to 20 times a day. Look at the history of Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette, for instance. Frania W. (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this page (French Revolution) protected?? Looking over the history, over the past year there has only been 2/3 instances of vandalism! 188.222.9.16 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

How interesting! Since this page is protected, "there has only been 2/3 instances of vandalism"! Hmm! Could these few instances of vandalism be due to the fact that this page is protected? This would prove that protection works. Bravo!

Frania W. (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Frania - don't be such a clever clogs. My statement was more of a question as someone new to wikipedia. I thought protection was only for articles which were frequently vandalised? Looking at the history, before the protection was applied in August 2009, the last case of vandalism was 9 months prior in November 2008, yet you stated that it was vandalised up to 20 times per day?! Am I missing something? Ah, perhaps the history hasn't been commented in every instance of vandalism? 188.222.9.16 (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP188.222.9.16: what is so clevercloggish about my answer? In November 2008, the article was vandalised 110 times, 35 of which in a single day: 12 November. Semi-protection was applied on 20 November 2008 and, from what I understand, reconfirmed on 25 August 2009. Since the article has been put under semi-protection in November 2008, it has suffered only five cases of vandalism. So, at the risk of being labeled "a clever clogs", I shall reiterate my "Could these few instances of vandalism be due to the fact that this page is protected?" Regards, Frania W. (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

misspelling

in the "Reign of Terror" section, "exaggerate" is misspelled as "exhaggerate."

Contradicting Articles

On the Wikipedia page entitled French Revolution under the section Storming the Bastille, it is stated that "...cries of Vive la Nation "Long live the Nation" changed to Vive le Roi "Long live the King".

However on the page entitled Storming of the Bastille under the section Aftermath it is stated that "...cries of "Long live the King" were changed to "Long live the Nation"."

These pages are referring to the same date and event.

Historical analysis

The last paragraph of this section now reads:

Scholars have asked whether certain Rousseauian and Jacobin concepts carried with them the seeds of twentieth century totalitarianism. Historian François Furet in his work, Le Passé d'une illusion (1995) (The Passing of An Illusion (1999) in English translation) explores in detail the similarities between the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution of 1917 more than a century later, arguing that the former was taken as a model by Russian revolutionaries. Likewise, the Italian historian Renzo De Felice tied the the French Revolution to fascism, "albeit spuriosly", when he wrote that that fascism "contains both a well-defined theory of human progress and a conception of the popular will that ties it to the extremist Rousseauian themes of the Terror and the ‘totalitiarian democracy’ that it spawned."

This paragraph does not explain the overall level of acceptance of these ideas and does not present alternative views. Fascism and related ideologies are normally seen as a reaction to the liberal ideals of the revolution. Consensus historians in France see Vichy France as incorporating ultra-right ideology (legitimism) rather than Jacobinism. I understand that there may be similarities between the French and Russian (and American and English for that matter) revolutions but how does that relate to "Rousseauian and Jacobin concepts" being the "seeds...of totalitarianism"?

The paragraph should be re-written for clarity and neutrality.

The Four Deuces (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not even really a paragraph. The sentence comparing the French and Russian revolutions has been in the article for months, whereas the claims inserted by Mamalujo were simply tacked onto the beginning and end of the sentence, implying an (apparently) false connection between those disparate analyses of different events by different authors, and giving the appearance of having created a "cohesive" paragraph where none existed before. This constitutes an additional, subtle form of SYN, in addition to the problems with the new assertions themselves, which impart undue weight to the views of one or two specific scholars by failing to reflect and attribute the views properly, giving the appearance that they are claims of academic consensus.

When going out on a limb with complex and far-reaching analyses of disparate subject matter – perhaps even going so far as presenting revisionist history, as Deuces has suggested, I insist that it's critical to discuss and build consensus for the suggested changes rather than simply inserting them in the article without comment. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The article being on the history of French Revolution of 1789, i.e. causes leading to it & description of events of the Revolution itself, it seems to me that the section Historical analysis is out of place in this article. The article Historiography of the French Revolution with its section The Marxist, or Classic, interpretation is where such analysis & discussion belong. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article isn't "History of the French Revolution" it is just "French Revolution". The article is flawed without it. The matter really doesn't belong in a historiography article. Encyclopedias commonly have sections of the article which talk about the effects or legacy of the revolution. For example the Columbia Encyclopedia article on the French Revolution has a section on the revolution's effects: "Although some historians view the Reign of Terror as an ominous precursor of modern totalitarianism, others argue that this ignores the vital role the Revolution played in establishing the precedents of such democratic institutions as elections, representative government, and constitutions." Encarta's article has a section on its "ambiguous legacy": "Some historians have suggested that what the revolutionaries’ liberty meant in practice was violence and a loss of personal security that pointed to the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. This negative view had its roots in the ideas of many counter-revolutionaries, who criticized the Revolution from its beginning. These ideas gained new popularity during the period of reaction that set in after Napoleon’s final defeat in 1815, when the monarchy and its counter-revolutionary allies were restored to power. However, the majority of Europeans and non-Europeans came to see the Revolution as much more than a bloody tragedy. … One of the most important contributions of the French Revolution was to make revolution part of the world’s political tradition. The French Revolution continued to provide instruction for revolutionaries in the 19th and 20th centuries, as peoples in Europe and around the world sought to realize their different versions of freedom. Karl Marx would, at least at the outset, pattern his notion of a proletarian revolution on the French Revolution of 1789." Of course, I think the article ought to have the counter-point - that the effects or legacy of the revolution were the spawning of constitutionalism, liberty and the rights of man. Mamalujo (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that the title of the article is the History of the French Revolution, but that the article is *on* the history of the French Revolution. As an article on a person is a biography, the article follows the course of the life of the French Revolution, beginning with its causes & ending with its effects. However, going in a long dissertation on Marxism & all the excesses of totalitarian regimes of the 20th century (to which would be added those coming in the 21st) does not belong in the article. The Columbia Encyclopedia article does not blabla to great length into the effects of the French Revolution (below), while something more developed can be obtained here as Wikipedia gives the possibility of attaching sub-articles, as mentioned before. This would have the advantage of allowing a full exposé of the various effects of the French Revolution world-wide. If some entries are put in, the tone of the (end of) article will be changed, giving it a strong non-neutral POV. (At least, that's the way I see it while the back & forth discussion is going on & the tone is mounting.) Frania W. (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Columbia Encyclopedia last two paragraphs:

Effects of the Revolution

The French Revolution, though it seemed a failure in 1799 and appeared nullified by 1815, had far-reaching results. In France the bourgeois and landowning classes emerged as the dominant power. Feudalism was dead; social order and contractual relations were consolidated by the Code Napoléon. The Revolution unified France and enhanced the power of the national state. The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars tore down the ancient structure of Europe, hastened the advent of nationalism, and inaugurated the era of modern, total warfare.

Although some historians view the Reign of Terror as an ominous precursor of modern totalitarianism, others argue that this ignores the vital role the Revolution played in establishing the precedents of such democratic institutions as elections, representative government, and constitutions. The failed attempts of the urban lower middle classes to secure economic and political gains foreshadowed the class conflicts of the 19th cent. While major historical interpretations of the French Revolution differ greatly, nearly all agree that it had an extraordinary influence on the making of the modern world.

C'est tout.

Frania W. (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The term precursor implies no causal connection. But Mamalujo's edit implied that the values of the French Revolution: democracy, equality under the law, freedom and capitalism, which were the same values as the English and American Revolutions were inherently wrong and he provided no alternative view. Mamalujo's opinion, which he failed to source, is ultra-reactionary and similar to the world-view in the Protocols of Zion. If these views are to be presented, they should be tempered by more mainstream views. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you babbling about? It is not my opinion but well sourced material. Many scholars see the French and American revolutions as being easily distinguishable. The American Revolution had no Reign of Terror. It did not slaughter 40,000 innocents in six months. It did not seek to dechristianize the nation. It did not desecrate churches and turn them into temples to the Goddess of Reason. Protocols of the Elders of Zion???!!! What have you been smoking? Statements along the lines of the edits I have made are found in encyclopedias and in history and political science text books. Please stop the wing-nut ad hominem attacks - it goes far beyond failing to assume good faith. How dare you call my opinion ultra-reactionary or compare it to that filthy anti-semitic work. My political opinions, which are actually irrelevant to this discussion, are quite mainstream and moderately conservative.

I did not say that the values of democracy were inherently wrong. What some scholars are saying is something to the effect that the values of radicalism, mob rule and totalitarian revolution, i.e. remaking not just government but society and man (something the American revolution did not seek to do), were precursors to 20th century totalitarianism. And if you will read my last post you can see that I proposed that BOTH sides of the "ambiguous legacy" of the revolution be included in the article. Mamalujo (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Which "historians view the Reign of Terror as an ominous precursor of modern totalitarianism"? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Its obviously a widely held view, otherwise it wouldn't be found in general encyclopedia articles on the French Revolution. It may have been novel a half century ago but is not today. Jacob Talmon and François Furet (whose work in particular was very influential) were a couple of the earlier proponents. Mamalujo (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It would have been helpful had the encyclopedias given information about their sources. I cannot find anything in the writings of Talmon and Furet that specifically corroborates the statement about the Terror and totalitarianism. Do you know where they discussed this? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a book review of Furet's The Passing of an Illusion which summarizes his major themes including "Furet's book begins with a study of the roots of communism in the French Revolution of 1789", "According to Furet, communism's evil twin, fascism, picked up on the revolutionary potential of nationalism, unleashed by the events of 1789", and "Revolution of 1789 bequeathed, not only liberal democracy to the modern world, but revolutionary totalitarianism as well". Mamalujo (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(out)The connection between 1789 and fascism is described in the review:

According to Furet, communism's evil twin, fascism, picked up on the revolutionary potential of nationalism, unleashed by the events of 1789. While communism sought, at least in theory, to spread the concept of The Rights of Man to the working classes and the dispossessed, fascism's radical nationalism sought to emancipate nations. Hitler and Mussolini's call to national pride and self-assertion struck a cord with many people, humiliated by national collapse after the Great War.

So the Revolution of 1789 bequeathed, not only liberal democracy to the modern world, but revolutionary totalitarianism as well.

So the connection between the French Revolution and fascism is nationalism. It does not mention Rousseau or the Terror.

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The references to Rousseau are cited in the sourced material which you and your comrade kept deleting (apparently without reading the text or the sources). In the Passing of an Illusion Furet does refer obliquely to Rousseau's influence at p 16 and to the Terror at 71-72. Some of his followers have been more explicit. In the deleted material Cohen and Paul are quite explicit. Mamalujo (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Furet, at p. 16, is in the process of speaking of "antibourgois passion" when he refers to Rousseau. Without reading a lot more, I'm not sure where you are seeing anything about a link between Rousseau and Fascism. Please explain? Also, pages 71-72 don't seem to be accessible to me; could you quote some source text and explain how it substantiates that Furet asserted a link between the French Revolution and Fascism? And while we're on the subject, please understand that it's up to you to demonstrate that the material you want to add is relevant, well-sourced, etc.. a big part of that is discussing actual source text on the Talk page. I know that it can seem insulting when people question or challenge you, especially if it's something that's obvious to you or something which you know from your own studies; just remember that WP tends to require everything to be laid out in a somewhat pedantic, extensively footnoted way. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Try this link.[3] Pages 71-72 also do not mention totalitarianism or fascism.

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The pages are still unavailable to me, unfortunately. I think google books may have a tricky way of remembering which pages it blocked for a specific user, in order to prevent someone single person from previewing the same book over and over until they get all the pages, and thereby steal the book. I'll take your word for it though. Mamalujo, if you disagree, could you provide us with some source text that substantiates your claim? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW The full name of the book is The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Furet refers to Rousseau or the Terror in that regard is beside the point. His work was not cited as authority for those propositions. Mamalujo (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, gee; I'm glad I wasted my time chasing down that reference, then. Perhaps next time you could avoid suggesting a work supports your claim when it doesn't. And, of course, avoid inserting article text which is not substantiated by the source you provide. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If you would read my comments (not to mention the text which you deleted) you would see that Paul and Cohen are cited for those propositions. Mamalujo (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I read your comments and the text I deleted. I was able to see that Cohen's work, for example, did not quite substantiate the claim you attributed to it. That was a primary reason why I deleted it, although there were others. Meanwhile, the referenced pages from Paul's work are unavailable in the Google Books preview that's linked. As I said, if you wish to add material on this subject, bring your proposed material to the talk page, along with text from the source which you say substantiates it, and let it be subjected to a little peer review before simply inserting it into the article sans commentaire and then reverting anyone who removes it. And, I wonder if you have given any further consideration to Frania W.'s comment that this whole discussion is suited to the article Historiography of the French Revolution, and not this one? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) I took the following out: Historian François Furet in his work, Le Passé d'une illusion (1995) (The Passing of An Illusion (1999) in English translation) explores in detail the similarities between the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution of 1917 more than a century later, arguing that the former was taken as a model by Russian revolutionaries. While it is no doubt true, it violates WP:Weight that the only consequence of the Revolution mentioned is the Russian Revolution. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It would appear by itself to give undue weight, which is why I think we should have a section on the legacy of the French Revolution which includes the legacy of both sets of principles of the revolution, what one author referred to as "liberal-democratic" principles and the "nonliberal, nondemocratic principles". Thus, the section would include what is seen as the democratic legacy and also the totalitarian legacy of the revolution. Of course, I am not eager for an edit war, so I would like to get a consensus on the content of the section. Perhaps, Four Deuces, you would like to take a stab at it. Mamalujo (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject itself is complex and there appears to be no academic consensus. I think it might be better to give detailed descriptions in the historiography article. The author you quoted, Philippe Beneton, provides just one of many views. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wanted to add pictures

File:Logo de la République française.svg

Logo of the French Revolutionary Government.

Liberty Leading the People, a romantic picture commemorating the French Revolution (Eugène Delacroix)

Federation Day, July 14, 1790 (Charles Thévenin)

Run on the Tuileries, August 10, 1792 (Jean Duplessi-Bertaux)

Charlotte Corday's assassination of Jean Paul Marat, July 9, 1793 (Paul Jacques Aimé Baudry)

The arrest of Robespierre on the night of 9 Thermidor, July 27, 1794 (Jean-Joseph-François Tassaert)

Napoleon Bonaparte in the coup d'état of 18 Brumaire in Saint-Cloud, November 9, 1799

The Coronation of Napoleon, December 2, 1804 (Jacques-Louis David)

The page is locked, but I wanted to cite things, and add pictures.130.39.188.130 (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

RE the above suggestions: This article is on the 1789 French Revolution & even if they agree with its spirit, some of the pictures do not fit the period:

1. Logo de la République française is too modern, too recent. It is the official logo of the present-day French government.
2. La Liberté guidant le peuple, a painting by Eugène Delacroix commemorating the 1830 Revolution, nothing to do with 1789.
3. La Fête de la Fédération (14 July 1790) by Charles Thévenin would be fine.
4. La prise des Tuileries (10 August 1792) by Jean Duplessis-Bertaux is already in article.
5. Assassinat de Marat belongs to articles on Charlotte Corday and Marat.
6. Arrestation de Robespierre would be fine.
7. Bonaparte et le coup d'état du 18 Brumaire (9 November 1799), a close up of same painting is already in article: this whole painting looks better than the close up.
8. Coronation of Napoléon (2 December 1804): does not belong in 1789 French Revolution but in article on Napoléon himself & in that of the First French Empire.

Frania W. (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You should move this section to the bottom of the page, otherwise people will not notice it. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I took these pictures from the other language wikipedia sites, primarily the Spanish one, which is at featured article status. I agree with most of the above criticism (my Spanish is rusty). My suggestions are the following: 1) La prise des Tuileries should use the more colorful version because it is a more accurate representation of the work, and IMHO looks better, although I don't know how to tag the image to redirect to the nicer version, 2) consistent labeling of artist and date. (The coronation comes from the German page, and a depiction of the Marat assassination is on several versions including the French and Italian pages). Additionally a number of the other wikipedias have images of the principle characters. Anyways the page is locked. 72.207.248.117 (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Although the artwork is good (and in several cases well-known), it's a mostly unstated mixture of period images and artwork created several generations after the events. Durova²⁸⁵ 03:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

La Fête de la Fédération would be a great addition to article. Frania W. (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Problematic statements of number of Terror victims

Section 6.3 of this article has a picture of a guilloutine with the caption: "Guillotine: between 18,000 and 40,000 people were executed during the Reign of Terror". This very matter-of-fact statement has no apparent source, and therefore seems problematic. The section text itself, which is sourced, says: "A number of historians note that as many as 40,000 accused prisoners may have been summarily executed without trial or died awaiting trial," without indicating any minimum number. Dying while awaiting trial is also obviously different from being sentenced and executed, particularly by guilloutine as the picture seems to indicate.

At the time of writing this, the main Reign of Terror article says, on the question of estimates: "Estimates vary widely as to how many were killed, with numbers ranging from 16,000 to 40,000; in many cases, records were not kept, or if they were, they are considered likely to be inaccurate," and I'm not sure what the source is for that statement.

This is all very confusing, but there's clearly a difference between 16,000 human lives, 18,000 and 40,000. Since this information pertains to such a serious matter, perhaps we should strive for greater accuracy? Or at least to be more clear about the sources for the figures, and their reliability or lack thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.189.103 (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Article did not mention French poessions New Orleans etc

May I ask what "goverment" the French poessions of North America such as New Orelans ,Louisiana have during French Rvolution? Thanks!(dated PMAfternoonAug24,200921stcnt.Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC"X")ANDREMOI (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Haitian Revolution article has some information on the situation there; as for New Orleans, the territory of Louisiana belonged to Spain between the end of the Seven Years' War and 1800. AlexiusHoratius 22:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Putting it together in simple terms

I know I must sound stupid but I need help. Please help me to understand this subject better by putting it into simpler terms. Thank you. --71.126.145.184 (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Causes section

The causes section mentions the king came to power with financial distress, partially attributed to France's involvement in the American Revolution. However, the rest of the section discusses events beginning before France's involvement in that (though after the Seven Years War), and a look at the King's reign also contradicts this. I know France's involvement in the American Revolution eventually contributed to the French Revolution, but the chronology seems to undermine the introduction to this section. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of this can clarify. --Rybock (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Women in the Revolution

There should be more information on women's activism during the French Revolution, especially their writings. The Revolution was an important starting point for female activism in France. Though they didn't have many, if any, political rights, they were able to express their views, especially through writing, and effect at least temporary change in how they were treated. There should be a link to the "Feminism in France" page which unfortunately only contains about 200 words about feminists in the Revolution. EvaBW (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you give examples of successful "women's activism" and "temporary change & treatment" for women in the French Revolution? Any woman whose head rose above the crowd, such as Olympe de Gouges (Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen, 1791), was swiftly... beheaded! As for the women's march to Versailles, it was a case of super manipulation of women by men. These are two cases of "activism" of women during the French Revolution & it did not take them very far. Frania W. (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I came to read an historical article and instead I see something that has clearly been hijacked by someone with a revisionist agenda. About a quarter of the article is now dedicated to women's issue and it gives the article the feel of a badly written term paper from a first year Women's Studies student. A single paragraph would be more appropriate - and if there really need to be more, a link to a separate article on "The Emergence of the Feminist Movement in France during the Revolution" or some such gobbledygook. Can a Wikipedian with more knowledge of how to edit these things help this out? --216.251.141.90 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of moving the page, one could simply edit and improve it? The French Revolution was not just the domain of men; women both for and against the Revolution made their impact. In fact, I think it could be expanded more to include the counterrevolutionary women as well. If you wish to incorporate more about women in the article at large, that could be an acceptable exchange. The paragraphs about the specific women could be shortened, as long as links were given to their separate pages. But the near complete disregard for women in the rest of the article is appalling. If you wish to change the message and language of the section, by all means do so. But it would not truly be a historical article if it did not talk about women and their effect.ClioFR (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Expanding and Citing the "Revolution and the Church"

I am planning on providing citations for the information in the "Revolution and the Church" article. I would also like expand upon the information currently provided. Specifically, the role of the Church before the Revolution and the origins of de-christianization efforts. It would also be suitable to discuss the impact of Voltaire's writings on de-christianization. The legislative acts against the Church during the revolution need to elaborated upon to show the decline in the power of the Church. It would also be beneficial to discuss, more in depth for the main article, the response and resistance of the clergy. The focus of this revision will show how the transfer of the power of the Church to the Republic was the basis of the dechristianization efforts. KMPalma (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting rights

In the second paragraph of the section titled 'Estates-General of 1789' it is stated 'suffrage requirements were: 25 years of age and over six livres paid in taxes." Perhaps I am unaware but I didn't think women had voting rights at this time. I think it is dangerous to let it the reader assume that you are referring only to men. Some young women are lucky enough NOT to know that for most of history, and still most of the women in the world today, are oppressed and their views discounted. I think it's not impossible that some young students would read this and not know that women haven't had the vote for most of history.

It is unreasonable that we should let young people learn to accept that as given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.207.73 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical impact

Some one could most likely tack on a paragraph at the end of this article on the results of this event just for a more clear and concise sort of summary on the revolution and how it impacted France. A little bit on how the Monarchy was abolished for a democratic republic and the ideas of inalienable rights being established. 72.48.20.210 (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There already is a section "Historical Analysis"[4] and an article Historiography of the French Revolution. Interpretating impact of the revolution is highly controversial. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Similarities to English Revolution

Could we maybe add a section listing the similarities and differences between the French and English Revolutions? That would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.99.76 (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the relevance of adding such a section. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is on the French Revolution, if we start adding a section showing similarities & differences between French & English revolutions, then why not with the American, the Russian, the Chinese & that of every country that has had revolution(s)? Why not La Révolution des Pingouins in Latvia: [5] ???

Frania W. (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A comparison of the reformation reforms under Henry VIII and the French Revolution would be more appropriate.Resolutepeasant (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? Eldamorie (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not the reformation. Aint you heard of Oliver Cromwell? His rule was such a disaster that the English actually wanted back the son of the King Charles they had executed. The French should be fearful of seeing the same thing, yet they started a revolution. Never mind King Henry. --85.164.221.69 (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

also, in response to the earlier question linking english and french revolutions, which english revolution? And, would not the american revolution be better comparison point due to chronological proximity? Or, the early modern society of england in 1689 as a better comparison point to the french revolution in that the english had a more complex economy then the americans, larger population,longer history of interaction throughout europe, presence of aristocratic classes, larger artisanal class, etc? trying to further discussion on the old discussion page. a comparative viewpoint on the atlantic revolutions be it the american, or one of the english revolutions, the haitian revolution, or the Dutch revolution could be a useful addition to the page. Especially as it could help the inexperienced learner connect the forces at work in one revolution to another. Just as the revolutionary movements rippling through the arab world are all different, understanding the egyptian revolt without knowing about tunisia is only half the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.232.166 (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

French Revolution Causes

1. Old Regime: The Three Estates First Estate Church owned 10 percent land paid 2 percent in taxes Second Estate Nobles owned 20 percent of land and paid 1 percent taxes Third Estate 98 percent of population working class merchants paid half to taxes The third Estate was out numbered in voting and wanted to have voting with population so everyone was counted they were exploited 2. Economic Problems Population Growth Business could not make money because of high taxes Bad Weather Drought led to famine poor crops The price of bread doubled too expensive for third estate and it was the main source of food 3.Weak Leader Lois XVI spent too much money borrowed to help America defeat Britain Indecisive Did not want to govern his country 4.Marie Antoinette Spent Millions 5.Enlightenment Inspired peasants to revolt 6.American Revolution Inspired peasants served as a model of freedom 7.Dept Desperation Bad Economy -RjR —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeekerR (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

influences

"Looking to the Declaration of Independence of the United States for a model, on 26 August 1789, the Assembly published the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen."

Can we get a citation for this? I've never come across such a claim before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.216.208 (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the claim. Both the US and French revolutionaries looked to Englightenment ideals, but this claim seems dubious. TFD (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

People commit suicide at Louis's execution?

The section about Lious XVI's execution says "Others in the crowd went mad, slit their throats or jumped into the river Seine[57]". I find this extremely hard to believe. It goes on to clarify that "according to historian Adam Zamoyski this was not so much due to their love for the King but as he was seen as a representative of God on earth". That's utter nonsense. The revolutionaries were either Catholic, and thus viewed the pope as God's representative on Earth, or else atheist. Many people at the time did believe that kings were born into their power by God, but they certainly didn't think he was a representative of God. Plus this was an open revolution against the king. Quotes from the book please? Any more evidence? Otherwise it seems like a WP:FRINGE theory.--178.167.176.199 (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The source is a book is by Adam Zamoyski. You can read his words here] on pp. 1-2. Certainly the monarchy had strong support among some sections of the population, and they believed in the divine right of kings. TFD (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Albert Camus, « L’homme révolté », La Pléiade, 1951, pp. 528-529.[6]

• Les révolutionnaires peuvent se réclamer de l’Évangile. En fait, ils portent au Christianisme un coup terrible, dont il ne s’est pas encore relevé. Il semble vraiment que l’exécution du Roi, suivie, on le sait, de scènes convulsives, de suicides ou de folie, s’est déroulée tout entière dans la conscience de ce qui s’accomplissait. Louis XVI semble avoir, parfois, douté de son droit divin, quoiqu’il ait refusé systématiquement tous les projets de loi qui portaient atteinte à sa foi. Mais à partir du moment où il soupçonne ou connaît son sort, il semble s’identifier, son langage le montre, à sa mission divine, pour qu’il soit bien dit que l’attentat contre sa personne vise le Roi-Christ, l’incarnation divine, et non la chair effrayée de l’homme. Son livre de chevet, au Temple, est « L’Imitation de Jésus-Christ ».

--Frania W. (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

a couple of points. We can't use Camus (it would be OR, and he's not a RS on French history). It would be good to use Zamoyski but that would require a new section of at least 250 words (and preferably a new article) on reactions to the death of the king, a subject that many historians besides Zamoyski have written about and that need to be covered. Rjensen (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would using Camus be OR??? Is not a book where information is found a secondary source? He did the research, not I or anyone reading what he wrote.

--Frania W. (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Camus was not an historian and did not submit his work to peer review. While I do not doubt he was accurate, the only way to know this would be by comparing his work with that of historians. TFD (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This amuses me tremendously... Related to this article, I could quote to you parts out of those on Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette & Louis XVII that are so filled with unquestioned trivia found in books whose authors could not possibly have the respect of historians. The article on Louis XVII bathes in trivia and out of its eight footnotes, not one brings anything valuable from a serious historian. The whole biography section goes on with hardly a footnote; however, this one, in Romanian from a Romanian historian ??? is more acceptable by Wikipedia's standards than anything Albert Camus could write?

• name="Dauphin">Template:Ro icon http://convorbiri-literare.dntis.ro/PLATONmai4.html "The Reeducation of The Dauphin," by Mircea Platon, Convorbiri Literare, May 2004

Someone please show me Mircea Platon's peer review !

--Frania W. (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you find poorly sourced articles you should try to improve them. TFD (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Camus appears to simply be reporting something that is seen as common knowledge. He isn't asserting the existence of these "scenes of suicide and madness," he's using the apparently well-known fact of their existence as evidence of another point he is making. At the same time, if it is such common knowledge, we ought to be able to find a better source than a passing reference in a Camus essay. john k (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

TFD It just happens that I do not have the time to correct all the articles that I find "poorly sourced". If you would care to look at the history of my revisions, you would see that I do contribute quite a bit to Wikipedia, often in depth; (un)fortunately, there is life outside Wikiland & I shall take care of Louis XVII & Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette & others when I have more time or when I get stuck at home during a snowstorm. The only reason I brought them up was to point out to you the fact that what is strictly demanded here on Camus is totally ignored in other articles.

--Frania W. (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not telling you what to do, merely stating what reliable sources are. TFD (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cultural depictions

The cultural depictions always need a separate section because there are many of them, mine was just the first Cote d'Azur 08:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur (talk • contribs)

The "bloody stuff"

"After he was executed, some of the citizens who witnessed the beheading ran forth to have their clothes soaked in the late King's blood, dripping from his head."

Why should this sentence of an event recognised by historians - and not only by "non-expert" Albert Camus - be removed from text? - "bloody stuff", maybe, but the French Revolution was a "bloody affair", no need here to be politically correct.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of bad taste to exult in the killing process. Camus was not especially well informed in history and cannot be treated as a RS.Rjensen (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen, here I am not talking about Camus. Historians not particularly known for their love of sensationalism do not seem to exult [7] when speaking of the gory details of the French Revolution. The scene that happened immediately after the beheading of Louis XVI is described by Evelyne Lever, spécialiste de l'histoire de l'Ancien Régime, ingénieur de recherche au CNRS, in her book Louis XVI, Fayard, 1985, p. 666; and also in Simon Schama's Citizens, Knopf, 1989, p. 670.

A horrifying scene is a horrifying scene, and if it is a real event of history, why should it be ignored or censured out of an article?

By the way, you replaced the lines you cut out by the following: "Queen, Marie Antoinette, went to the guillotine on 16 October. Royalty across Europe was horrified and prepared for war." Isn't the word horrified a bit strong to describe the feelings of royalty across Europe after the execution of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette? And, how do we know that they were "horrified"? Marie-Antoinette's own brother, Franz II, does not seem to have given much of a hoot [8] about his sister's predicament after her husband had been gently put away.

--Frania W. (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, a few points. Firstly, is this incident of such importance that it deserves to be mentioned in hat can only be a brief introduction to the revolution? I don't remember Doyle talking about it in the Oxford History of the French Revolution, which is a much longer introduction to the subject. It perhaps belongs in the article about Louis XVI himself, or in a specific article about his trial and execution, if there is one, but probably not in the general article about the Revolution. Secondly, Franz II was Marie Antoinette's nephew, not her brother. Her brother, Leopold II, had died in March 1792, before the fall of the monarchy in France. Rjensen's statement that Frania doesn't like seems problematic, though. In the first place, it seems to imply that the powers of Europe prepared for war after the execution of Marie Antoinette. That's not true, and, in general, we should talk about the execution of Marie Antoinette in the context of the terror, when it occurred, not in the context of the execution of her husband. It was a separate action undertaken at a different time for different reasons. Secondly, I don't think we should attribute the origins of the war to the execution of the king, either. Austria and Prussia had gone to war with France even before the fall of the monarchy (The Battle of Valmy had occurred on the same day as the proclamation of the Republic, iirc). Britain and the Dutch Republic, it is true, went to war with France after the execution of Louis XVI, but this had much more to do with the French occupation of Belgium, which had begun in November 1792, than with the execution of the king, which was largely an excuse. Only Spain and Naples really went to war with France largely because of the execution of the king. john k (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

the text follows numerous historians--here are some recent examples of how historians treat the reaction to the execution of the king: "as horrified royalty throughout Europe looked on, Louis was executed" [Jonathan Randall White - 1996]; in Spain "The execution of Louis XVI horrified the court and outraged the country" [Rodrigo Botero 2001]; "horrified Corsica as well as Europe" [Steven Englund -2004]; " horrified the landed elite in Britain" [Ellis Wasson; 2009] Rjensen (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that all those examples pertain to the execution of the king, not of Marie Antoinette. I would agree that horror was the response in much of Europe to the executions, and especially among royalty. What I was arguing against was the implication that that horror was the principal cause of the war against revolutionary France; it was not. john k (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict, so what follows is not an answer to comment by Rjensen (FW):

1) Sorry about the mix-up brother/nephew: the point I was trying to make was that Franz II did not seem to care about his aunt to the point of having been "horrified".

2) Regarding the "bloody stuff", there since May 2009, and referenced to Doyle p. 331, then, on 20 July 2009, to which Zamoyski's Holy Madness & Camus' The Rebel were added : why the disdain here toward Camus while some very doubtful "historians" are allowed in other articles without the flinching of an eyelid?

3) Scrolling up & down the history of this article, I notice that, on 7 May 2009, the template This section requires expansion was added to the section "Execution of Louis XVI",while the "bloody stuff" was already there, filling half the section.

4) If details pertaining to the death of Louis XVI and reaction of some in the crowd do not belong in the section with the title "Execution of Louis XVI", why have such a section? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a section named "Trial and execution of Louis XVI"? The trial of the king, a very important event of the French Revolution is no where to be seen, except for these few lines (47 words underlined) preceding the "bloody part" in the "execution" section:

• In the Brunswick Manifesto, the Imperial and Prussian armies threatened retaliation on the French population if it were to resist their advance or the reinstatement of the monarchy. This made Louis appear to be conspiring with the enemies of France. 17 January 1793 saw Louis condemned to death for "conspiracy against the public liberty and the general safety" by a close majority in Convention: 361 voted to execute the king, 288 voted against, and another 72 voted to execute him subject to a variety of delaying conditions. The former Louis XVI, now simply named Citoyen Louis Capet (Citizen Louis Capet), was executed by guillotine on 21 January 1793 on the Place de la Révolution, former Place Louis XV, now called the Place de la Concorde.

--Frania W. (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that it would make a lot more sense to have a section that dealt with the trial, as well. The trial was, I think, far more important than the execution itself, in terms of setting up the conflict between the Mountain and the Girondins. I don't necessarily have any objection to the material you discuss being in this article, I just think it seems like a strange thing to focus on. john k (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What got me arguing about that material was Camus being "denied the right to speak" on the subject because not an historian, and also the fact that the French Revolution was a bloody historical event that cannot be handled with velvet gloves.

Again, in a section called "the execution of Louis XVI", the material has its place there, otherwise, what are we to talk about? Pigeons flying over the Place de la Révolution? However, if we have a section developing the (historically speaking very important) trial, a "play" of which the execution of the king is the last "scene", then it is a different story, which would end with the sentence: "Louis XVI was guillotined on 21 January 1793 on the Place de la Révolution." Details of what happened after the execution would then have their place in the article on Louis XVI.

--Frania W. (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit late chiming in here, but, I just wanted to note that it's an interesting piece of History that speaks to the level of hatred these people had for their King, that they wanted his blood on their clothing... Gory or not, it communicates an idea... and without a real solid reason for removing it other than someone's OPINION about the level of validity there is to it, where else would you recommend we find out this important tidbit of info? Should it just be deleted from history altogether? I think it's important. JudgeX (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It should not be "deleted from history altogether" no more than knee splitter during the Inquisition or waterboarding in a recent conflict, the name of which I have forgotten...

--Frania W. (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of a phrase

While reading this article I came across the term "Financial Dictatorship" and was thoroughly confused. Could anyone shed some light on this phrase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.210.145 (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The American Revolution

Two things. First, the article says this:

Another cause was France's near bankruptcy as a result of the many wars fought by Louis XV and in particular the financial strain caused by French participation in the American Revolutionary War.

Is this quantifiable? The AR page says 7,800 troops sent to aid the Colonies and at least one ship. Doesn't sound like much financial strain. Is the above statement slanted towards a particular viewpoint?

Also, I'm curious if the American Revolution had any effect on the thinking of the revolutionaries in France. That is, was it influential? If so, why leave it out? Seems like there was some interchange of ideas and at the very least Ben Franklin spent a lot of time in Paris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynasteria (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to military support, France provided substantial financial support to the American Revolution. And no the the Founding Fathers did not have influence upon the thinking of French revolutionaries. TFD (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

it says on the Causes of the French Revolution page "The American Revolution demonstrated that it was plausible for Enlightenment ideas about how a government should be organized could actually be put into practice. Some American diplomats, like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, had lived in Paris where they consorted freely with members of the French intellectual class. Furthermore, contact between American revolutionaries and the French troops who served as anti-British mercenaries in North America helped spread revolutionary ideals to the French people. After a time, many of the French began to attack the undemocratic nature of their own government, push for freedom of speech, challenge the Roman Catholic Church, and decry the prerogatives of the nobles.[3]" should that be mentioned on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.3 (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"One ship?" Ye gads--rather a lot more than that. See, for exampleBattle_of_the_Chesapeake. Ever wonder why Cornwallis didn't just leave Yorktown? The French Navy wouldn't let him. British strategy had been predicated on being able to put an army down or whisk one away again wherever there was a foot of water. The French crown spent a lot of money on the American war.--98.88.249.90 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

the French had already spent alot of money to rebuild their navy after the seven years war. Even so, they still failed to defeat the royal navy, although they did prevent cornwallis from being resupplied at yorktown. Nevertheless France was already on the road to financial collapse and Revolution. Their whole financial system was outdated, the intervention in American Revolution was just the straw that broke the camel's backVoucherman (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

/* Further reading */ add new book

since this is one of the most important topics in world history, I added a further reading section which will point users to the main reference books and scholarly studies, many of which will be available in typical academic librariesRjensen (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon's "dictatorship"

It can be argued Napoleon was not a dictator as First Consul. A dictator, in Rome, had both decreed and applied the law; moreoever, he was not elected by the people. In no sense, then, can Napoleon be called a dictator. Actually, on the contrary, if democracy is a system under which the whole people confides the government to magistrates of its choice elected for a limited period, then by the new Constitution France would be entering upon democracy. Although much of the governmental power was on Bonaparte, he did not wield absolute and supreme power, and his actions were very much limited by a intact government.

Although that all-powerful position of First Consul had the power to propose legislation, it was the specialized sections of the Council of State that wrote them: finance, legislation, war, navy, interior. There was no secrecy; the ministers attended the meetings and the consuls' approval was required to enact a law.

Either way, however, for the sake of being neutral, the text:

"This effectively led to Bonaparte's dictatorship and eventually (in 1804) to his proclamation as Empereur (emperor), which brought to a close the specifically republican phase of the French Revolution."

Should be replaced by:

"This effectively led to Bonaparte becoming the leader of France and eventually (in 1804) to his proclamation as Empereur (emperor), which brought to a close the specifically republican phase of the French Revolution."

I could also argue that Napoleon was still very much the republican that he was before becoming Emperor, but that is a discussion for another time.

-Talon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.19.17 (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Necker

What were the chief reasons of Necker's failures? It wasn't very well explained. TYelliot (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Necker's Report - inaccuracy?

This line (from the Pre-revolution Financial Crisis section) "Necker published a report to support this claim that underestimated the deficit by roughly 36,000 livres, and proposed restricting the spending power of the parlements." may be incorrect in regards to the underestimated amount. 36,000 livres seems like a trivial amount compared to the budgets of the day, which seem to be in the hundreds of millions (at least, from what I could find in the Jaques Necker article). Perhaps there is a source for this figure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.7.205 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Role of Jacques-Louis David

I am thinking about adding more on David's portrayal of revolutionary events. He's an important figure in cultural and political events and really deserves more attention.ClioFR (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Symbolism during the French Revolution

I am proposing an expansion on symbolism during the French Revolution. The figure of Hercules was a central figure of the monarchy and was then adapted to be a symbol of revolutionary glory. I think that this topic can be a useful tool to show how classical mythology was used during the Revolution. It can also show how revolutionary leaders still kept remnants of the Monarchy. Wavesworld (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Symbols of the French Revolution

We are a small class group that is looking to contribute a small article about some symbols of the French Revolution. We are currently planning to describe the uses and reasons behind the red bonnet and Phrygian cap; the triangle; and the serpent. We chose one symbol from each group of symbol creation- either to replace an older religious symbol, to make a symbol that is easily recognizable, or to introduce a new working-class symbol. Our alternative plan is to work with another class group that is studying the French Republic seal, and we would analyze the symbols used in the seal.

Solidnitrogen (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Revolution and the Church section

In the paragraph about the Civil Constitution of the Church, why in the world is the latter half of that paragraph about stuff that happened after the National Assembly was dissolved, under Napoleon's rule? That stuff, like the Concordat of 1801, should be relocated to the subsection relating to Napoleon, not the National Assembly.

98.82.128.180 (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Flight to Varennes

Of course, we must recognize that Louis XVI was publicly supportive of the Constitution of 1791 (having sworn an oath to uphold it) while leaving behind a letter abjuring his oath on the flight to Montmedy. His wife was also exposed as a spy, having reported to France's enemies of troop movements, etc. Presenting him as merely 'opposed to the course of the revolution' and offering no other explanation of the flight to Varennes (in fact, the article suggests he intentionally avoided 'treacherous' relationships (!)) is a de facto exoneration of what, to many French people at the time was high treason. This is a neutral assessment because this is how it appeared to people at the time. The assessment in the article is more or less pro-Louis. Maurizio689 (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Requests for citation

I notice there are quite a few requests for citation on some basic facts about the course of the Revolution. I believe most of this could be cited from Mignet, if anyone wishes to take the time to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say: glad to see recent use of Soboul and Lefebvre as sources. I've read them, but it was decades ago and I don't have copies. - Jmabel | Talk 18:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph

The intro paragraph states: The modern era has unfolded in the shadow of the French Revolution. The growth of republics and liberal democracies, the spread of secularism, the development of modern ideologies and the invention of total war[2] all mark their birth during the Revolution. --

This intro is very Eurocentric. Liberal democracies existed before the French Revolution (The United States), secularism was not born during this time, the "development of modern ideologies" is ambiguous, and "total war" certainly wasn't invented during this period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.56.170 (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Even though the American Revolution in some ways did influence the French, there is no getting around the fact that the French Revolution had far greater resonance in the political landscape in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries than the American. That was simply because France was one of the most powerful nations in Europe, so what happened there was followed closely by all the other European countries, and eventually also in the colonies. This is also why the other concepts you mention, although possibly not invented at the time, was spread and popularised particularly through this event. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Chronological

In order to prevent User:Hashem sfarim from getting into trouble from edit-warring and lack of assuming good faith, I am starting this section. I am not in favour of the addition of a list of a chronological table of the events to this article. The article is long enough as it is, and all the events mentioned are included in the actual article text. To my knowledge chronological tables are only used in articles as a temporary solution to include important facts that have yet to be added to the actual article text. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User has respectfully agreed to not add the content and has been redirected to Timeline of the French Revolution where his edits could prove to be very useful. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead expansion

I reverted this addition to the lead. Not that an expansion isn't warranted, it may be considering the length of the article, but the wording was not encyclopedic and it also just repeated much of the information already contained in the lead. It also contained too many peacock expressions ("feeble", "fabled", "epic" etc) as well as weaselwording (enlightenment and rightful hierarchy in what looks like sarcastic apostrophes). It is a positive thing not to use too dry a prose, but it can also get too flowery. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)