Talk:Women's March on Versailles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Women's March on Versailles has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 19, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know


why is this called "The March on Versailles" and not "March of Women" or "Women's March on Versailles"? the word "Women" should be a part in this title. Jessicanr 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

But it wasnt all women Norwood6891 19:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This episode is commonly referred to and recognized as the "October Days" or in French "Les journées de 5 et 6 octobre." The "October Days" is the most appropriate English title. I have never seen it referred to as the "Bread March of Women." Norwood6891 is correct; it wasn't all women. On October 6, the National Assembly did not accompany the king to Paris immediately. They only sent a group of deputies as a gesture and promised that they too would move since the night before they had declared themselves to be "inseparable" from the king. The Assembly wasn't able to relocate until mid-October. Out of curiosity, which historian (or historians') account is this article based on? 4 the Love of History 20:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is full of random, clearly not NPOV nonsense. Someone please clean it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


"Louis XVI, however, had made a fatal mistake and was to never see Versailles again." This sentence is out of place and hints at something the article does not describe. Also, why is this tagged part of the food project? Random! Superjoe30 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, um, it's 'cause of the whole "bread" thing. You know how Marie Antoinette is famous for saying "Let them eat cake!"? Well, she didn't actually say that, but they blamed her for the lack of actual food/bread because she was known to be selfish and, basically, a shopoholic. (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC) fasifj iasjieguigfoajv nahegioqujmEGqwuio gt34y856256264 y24ygq7 3y53y7777735q37y —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

George Bush in an article about the French Revolution? See last few lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

wrong title[edit]

The title of this article should be Women's March to Versailles on 5 and 6 October 1789 or Events of 5 and 6 October 1789 or 5 and 6 October 1789 (French Revolution). The article should also be wikilinked to article in French: Journées des 5 et 6 octobre 1789 Frania W. (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Militant feminist activism[edit]

There was an awful lot of militant feminist activism during the French Revolution, only one example of which being the march to Versailles. Included is the agitation of women for the right to bear arms, among others. It seems that such an expansion would naturally stem from the most prominent event exemplifying militant feminism, i.e. the march to Versailles. Grules (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"An awful lot of militant feminist activism during the French Revolution"? Please develop. Frania W. (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
See the new sections that were added. A link from the Woman's March to Versailles will take you there. Grules (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request: Title --> March of the Fishwives[edit]

This is a march largely consisting of fish wives, and it is what is taught in most high school curriculums, so I believe we should atleast add a link from the search "March of the Fishwives" if not changing the name completely. Ellano 03:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellanow (talkcontribs)

Article revision[edit]

During the next few days this article will be expanded significantly. Suggestions and comments will be much appreciated. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

So this article reads too well to be any good? Should we put the cheap novel style back?[edit]

Would whoever put the template

after article has been rewritten & appeared in this version[1] rather go back to that version[2] ?

--Frania W. (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Flanders Regiment, Body Guard and Swiss Guards[edit]

A fairly common error in descriptions of the events of 5-6 October is to describe the Flanders Regiment as foreign mercenaries. They were in fact a regular French infantry regiment who owed their title to distinguished service in that region earlier in the century. As ordinary French soldiers the rank and file had empathy with the marchers from Paris, and this probably explains why they failed to play an effective role after their officers' participation in the unfortunate banquet of 2 October. Accordingly the palace itself was patrolled only by the usual limited numbers (about 60) of Royal Body Guards - the bulk of this aristocratic force having inexplicably been withdrawn to the far end of the Versailles park where they spent the night. Finally, the "Swiss Guards" present at Versailles were not the genuinely elite regiment that was to be massacred when the Tuileries was stormed on 10 August 1792, but a small ceremonial unit known as the Cent-Suisses. I have made a few minor changes to an otherwise excellent article in the hope of clarifying these points. Buistr (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference in Popular Culture[edit]

If I am not mistaken, the French musical "1789: Les Amants de Bastille" has a scene, with a song and choreography, that depicts this event. If adding a section within the Women's March on Versailles that references popular culture is permissible, the scene in the musical might be worth mentioning. (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


He didn't die at age 31 during the revolution, as stated later in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  • The text states that about Maillard, not Lafayette. Do you think there are any text or punctuation changes that could prevent this confusion? SteveStrummer (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)