Talk:French Revolution

--Please note that the painting--Liberty Leading the People by Delacroix was not depicting the French Revolution of 1789. It is shows the revolution of 1830. 2.2.06 SLOD---

request from the main page:

Somebody PLEASE RE-NEW this article for the sake of Jimbo Wales!!! :) ;(

You simply do not refer to the monarchs of France as 'King Louis'. One writes and says 'Louis XVI', 'Louis XVIII' etc. This is a typical uneducated Americanism. In addition, what does '... fiscally equated the French state ... ' mean?? What kind of machine did this?

There was more than one French revolution, and that's not including the Commune uprising. I also think that referring back to the American revolution isn't exactly NPOV. -- Tarquin

Uf. There are lots of links here. Maybe we should have French Revolutions with links to French Revolution of 1789, French Revolution of 1830, French Revolution of 1848, Fronde, Vendee, French May 1968, Commune de Paris and whatever may be. -- Error 01:32, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Of course we all know the Revolution really happened because the French don't play cricket. - Bagpuss

---

Waooooh. This has to be replaced by a serious article.

This is written by someone who knows some of the history of France and Great Britain but not much. Example: at the time, more "peasants" were landowners in France than in Britain -- by far. Second, British taxation was by way of selective consumption taxes that imposed a heavy burden on the poor. The British aristocracy paid very little taxes. (In 1776, America revolted over taxation -- unfair taxation -- without representation.) Louis XIV's debts had no effect on the French revolution. Isolating the court at Versailles did. He died 74 years before the Revolution. (Wall Street crashed 74 years ago -- is it the cause of the whatever today?) Louis XV could (and should) have resolved the country's finances; France was still one of the wealthiest countries in the world. But, XV stupidly took them into the War of the Austrian Succession for no reason and at great cost. Then, the French & Indian War was a disaster. etc. etc. etc. The roots of the French Revolution can be traced to XV, but it was the privileges (nearly absurd when examined in depth) that the Old Noblesse (including the church Noblesse) refused to give up that created a frustration by ordinary people that change would never come. The French people love their King. The guillotined Louis XVI but then made Napoleon more than a "King", then three more Kings after him until 1871 and even then they wanted another King and today still argue about it. This article needs massive work from someone who knows what they are talking about. The idiocy of the "age of wit" at the French court under XVI exemplifies the decay underway. User:Black Widow

I don't claim to be a history expert, but I do think that Louis XIV had a lot to do with the Revolution. He waged more wars than either of his successors (though smaller ones, perhaps - I don't know), and he blew a huge amount of money on the construction of Versailles. True, Louis XV could have remedied the situation had he heeded the "Letter to the Dauphin" or whatever it was called, but it was his granddaddy who set the tone for his half-century on the throne.

And yes, 74 years is a long time, but we've gone through ten presidents in that time, whereas the French only went through two kings. And please explain what the isolation of the Court had to do with the Revolution. -Smack 05:18 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It is infamous that when Zhou Enlai was asked in in 1972 what he though of the effects of the French revolution, he replied that is was, "too soon to tell."

There is no way we will get actual agreement on the causes or the effects of the French Revolution. The best we can hope for is to present the conflicting theses and attribute them appropriately (e.g. "Simon Schama claims...", "Alfred Cobban claims..." It's a legitimately controversial subject. Come with sources. Even if you can't quote chapter and verse, it's probably reasonably to at least know and acknowledge the genealogy of your views (Marxist? Free-enterprise capitalist?) -- Jmabel 04:51, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It should not be too hard. See American Civil War for an example that is fairly sane. Daniel Quinlan 04:56, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

The Switzerland page states: "In 1798, armies of the French Revolution conquered Switzerland." I think that could be better dealt with on this page. Daniel Quinlan 10:23, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

Seems to me that things like that deserve at least a mention in both places, one cross-referring to the other, which really handles the story. -- Jmabel 04:51, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

I've made a few changes to this article, but I'm really hesitant to jump in heavily on a topic where I have at best the equivalent of a good undergraduate's knowledge on a topic outside his or her major. Instead, I've added a Glossary of the French Revolution and a List of people involved in the French Revolution. I hope that, as well as being useful for user reference, these will be of use as places for those of us with a moderate knowledge of the Revolution to effectively build up a set of "pointers" to help one another find what is already in the wikipedia, in order to eventually come back and strengthen this article. Much of the information we would need for a strong article appears to be scattered around the wikipedia, but of that, much has not up to now been easy to identify. -- Jmabel 09:35, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

I SIMPLY wish that contributors would know the difference between 'King' and 'king', and be able to write credible English. Sometimes the text has the flavour of an innocent translation. On the other hand, we all know that Americans simply cannot write English, let alone understand it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.42.247.91 (talk • contribs) 15 Jan 2006.

As, apparently, some non-Americans simply cannot understand the policy in favor of civility and against personal attacks, let alone conform to it.

In most of these contexts, even in Commonwealth English, either "king" or "King" would be correct, though their connotations tend to be slightly different, with the former most properly referring to the role and the latter to the person. However, this article is written in American English and, as WP:MOS#Titles points out, "American English and Commonwealth English differ in their inclination to use capitals. Commonwealth English uses capitals more widely than American English does. This may apply to titles for people." Differences between Commonwealth and American English are not errors in the latter any more than in the former: they are differences between two varieties of a language. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

At the bottom of the article French Revolution, the following

''This article makes use of the out-of-copyright'' [http://www.outfo.org/literature/pg/etext06/8hfrr10.txt History of the French Revolution from 1789 to 1814]'', by François Mignet ([[1824]]), as made available by [[Project Gutenberg]].''

...shows up as...

This article makes use of the out-of-copyright History of the French Revolution from 1789 to 1814, by François Mignet (1824), as made available by Project Gutenberg.

On my system, at least, there is an undesired space between the external link and the following comma. I believe this is new with the new software upgrade, and I presume it is not specific to my configuration.

1. Does anyone understand what is going on?
2. Is there either a fix on the way or a good, generalizable workaround? (Obviously in this case I could move the restart of the italics to after the comma, but I'm interested in a general solution)

-- Jmabel 04:35, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Are you seeing an icon following the external link? (Looks like two intersecting boxes). If not, there could be some browser/compatibility issue: there's meant to be an icon there, and it's present for me. - Nunh-huh 05:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I am not seeing a space. →Raul654 05:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Try refreshing the page (Mozilla: click Reload (or Ctrl-R), IE / Opera: Ctrl-F5, Safari: Cmd-R, Konqueror Ctrl-R). There should be an image after the link. Can you see other images on Wikipedia ok? Angela. 08:15, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same problem. Screenshot:

File:SuffrageExternalLinks.gif

This seems to only occur when the external link wraps around because it reaches the edge of the screen. (Note that the icon on the second external link, which doesn't wrap around, shows up fine while the first link wraps around and has the problem.) That's the way it's been happening whenever I've seen this. Also note that a slice of the icon does show up after the "to", when the link wraps around.

Perhaps the reason others aren't having the problem is because they're using a different screen resolution from Jmabel, so the text wraps at different places? I'm using 800x600, and I would guess Jmabel is too. LuckyWizard 06:20, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Yup. And 800 x 600 should be supported, no? -- Jmabel 20:20, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm running at 1024 x 768, and I've seen the same problem, though on other pages. I'd say the issue is just one of wrapping within a link. Anyone could reproduce it by adjusting their browser width to cause a wrap in a multi-word link. -Rholton 14:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Useful sources

I've noticed http://membres.lycos.fr/histoire1789/, which I plan to read through to see if it covers topics we've overlooked, and which seems to me to be probably good enough to mention in the article even though it's in French. Does anyone have other useful sources (especially online sources) to recommend? -- Jmabel 06:00, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC) (adding) http://mapage.noos.fr/mlopez/index1.htm also looks good. Also in French. -- Jmabel 06:04, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

The navbox template

I have an idea for a slightly modified template design, but I'm not sure if it's too fancy. Does anyone have any particularly strong thoughts on the issue?

-Didactohedron 02:09, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Tennis Court Oath

With reference to the members of the first two estates who joined the communes shortly after the Oath, someone recently and anonymously added, "Their desire to weaken the power of the monarchy outweighed the loss of power they suffered through empowering the Third Estate." I don't think this is on the mark, and I am reverting. Abbé Sieyès, for example, identified almost totally with the Third Estate, as did much of the lower clergy. I suggest that if we want to get into motivations at this level, we take it up in one of the more detailed articles rather than here in the main overview article. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:09, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Cut probable newbie experiment

I've cut from the article the following, which I assume was just newbie experiment. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:19, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

IN QUICK SUMMARY:

1. 3rd estate thinks that the people in the bastille have weapons

2. 800 people charge the building, demanding weapons

3. the general in the bastille makes things difficult [instead of just explaining that he had no weapons and proving it, he made a big stink of how he couldn't hand the weapons

4. the angry people kill many men including the general

5. have a 'glorious' victory- but find no weapons

6. It became the symbol of the French Revolution

The Durants

Someone recently added The Age of Napoleon: a History of European Civilization from 1789 to 1815by Will and Ariel Durant to the list of Further Reading. I would consider that strictly a popularizing work. It's not bad, but it's hardly a proper reference-level book. I'm certainly not going to remove it without consensus, but do others feel it belongs in the list or not? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:51, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree. We clearly need a much better reference list, though. I'd suggest adding Schama's Citizens (which, while popular history, is more scholarly, and more on point, than the Durant book), Doyle's book on the Origins and his Oxford History of the Revolution, Probably some stuff by Lefebvre - probably there's a few more books that could be added in, as well. The article itself is kind of a mess. It includes all that silly "rising bourgeoisie" stuff as a cause of the revolution when that's been under challenge since the 50s, and was pretty clearly discredited by the time Doyle wrote his origins book in 1980. Once I'm done reading through the French Revolution section of my exam list, perhaps I'll have a go at this and its related articles. john k 20:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All of this is at least moderately well covered in List of historians of the French Revolution, and I believe that is where it should stay (though more there would be good). I'll add that article to Template:French Revolution. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Changes to article

Hello all - I've been making some changes to the article, largely based on Doyle's Origins of the French Revolution. I think the account that we had previously was kind of frozen in what historians were thinking around 1950 - the focus on clear class conflicts, and so forth, and I wanted to update it. Doyle's account, written in 1980, is, I think, still seen as the standard account, at least in terms of its narrative of the political/fiscal crisis that led to the collapse of the monarchy, and the months in 1789 when the revolution itself began. That said, many writers have followed Doyle, and I've not really incorporated any of the stuff that's been written about cultural origins, and so forth, into the narrative, in part because I was sticking to the current format, which kind of compels a political narrative. And I think that most would agree that Doyle's account remains the standard narrative of the political story, at least. Any specific problems are, of course, up for revision. john k 23:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edit

Hello, I have removed some stranges letters on the first line that look like vandalism. They were "The period of the French Revolution K PWNS YO BTS MUTHAS in the history of France covers the years between"... If this has some kind of meaning, sorry for having removed it ; but then please explains what it means :) notepad 16:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems that User:165.138.113.252 has tried to do some vandalism on this page. notepad 16:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is a much-vandalized page. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:51, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes this page is vandalized.

This page is still vandalized 06-14-2005

Evidently User:165.138.113.252 refers to himself as "K," (perhaps a reference to the protaganist in "The Trial?").Pwns (pronounced "poans") literally "owns," means "dominates" or "defeats." "Yo" is American ghetto language for "your." "Bts" is an abbreviation for "butts." "Muthas," again, ghetto for "mothers." He was addressing his fellow wikians, not as his literal mater familias, but as a shortened form of "muthafuckas."

So all in all, he was saying "Haha, I got you." Hopefully, it was worth it for him. 68.219.72.114 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The war on writing

Edits like this make me wonder: is there a specific mandate in favor of dull writing that I somehow missed? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

There is a header saying "The french revolution is gay." Can someone change that back to the proper heading (I don't know what it was supposed to be... Beth

Pictures

In my opinion the article lacks some good pictures, especially in the middle. How about adding Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's picture of the de:Freiheitsbaum (de:Bild:Freiheitsbaum.jpg)? NightBeAsT 21:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

In reference to a point made above, the inclusion of Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People does not seem accurate for this article, as it depicts the 1830 Revolution, and not the 1789 one. I'd support its replacement with something more pertinent from the era. Vladdraculdragon 15:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The Church

In the lead, with reference to the Roman Catholic Church in France, I believe "forced to undergo radical restructuring" is more on the mark than "obliged to foretake extreme reformation". "Forced" is certainly not to strong a word: at times it was deadly force. "Reformation" suggests it may have been mainly a doctrinal matter: in fact, other than apostolic succession, there wasn't a lot of doctrinal change required. Except for the brief episode of de-Christianization, the changes were mostly to (1) the financial foundation of the Church and (2) the mode of appointing/selecting priests and bishops. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Death by fart?

The version I'm look at says:

"On July 14 1789, after four hours of combat, the insurgents farted, killing the governor, Marquis Bernard de Launay, and several of his guards." It also mentions a "sticky vulva king". Is that accurate info about the French Revolution? Somehow I think not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.59.62.58 (talk • contribs) 7 Nov 2005.

Lord knows why, but the French Revolution and related topics are among the most often vandalized articles in Wikipedia, usually vandalized from IP addresses with no other edits. I would guess that either it's one idiot with a good ability to fake IP addresses and nothing better to do, or it is several idiots with nothing better to do, at least one of whom has a good ability to fake IP addresses. The vandalism seems too complicated for a vandalbot. Annoying. When you see this crap, do feel free to go into the history and revert to an earlier version, with a comment "reverting vandalism". Usually these are fixed within hours, often within minutes, but this seems to be an area where someone is about as dedicated to adding vandalism as some of us are to removing it. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, topics found in high school textbooks are frequently vandalized. Rklawton 01:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

how

how do you revert it back? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelHaKorean (talk • contribs) 15 Nov 2005.

I was about to answer on this user's talk page, but apparently he is currently blocked for plagiarism and vandalism, so I will let him work out reversion for himself. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Innocents guillotined

I removed the following from the first paragraph of the "Causes" section: "They have estimated that more than 37,000 innocent citizens were guillotined."

1. Without some indication of who "they" are, this is uncited.
2. This number is higher than any I recall seeing, so I am not letting it pass without citation.
3. In any event, this is not one of the causes of the Revolution, and if it belongs in the article, that is not the section where it belongs.

Jmabel | Talk 08:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Champ-de-Mars

23 Dec. 05 I'm not sure where this comment goes. Please move it if need be but: "The National Guard under Lafayette's command confronted the crowd... and Lafayette ordered his men to fire into the crowd, resulting in the killing of as many as fifty people."

That needs to be edited. it was Jean-Sylvain Bailly who ordered the killings rather than Lafayette who had tried to disperse the crowd gathered on the Champ-de-Mars. However his efforts were in vain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.83.152 (talk • contribs) 24 Dec 2005.

Mignet, the source I used, writes:

The insurrection became alarming. Lafayette again repaired to the Champ de Mars, at the head of twelve hundred of the national guard. Bailly accompanied him, and had the red banner unfurled. The crowd was then summoned to disperse in the name of the law; it refused to retire, and, contemning authority, shouted, "Down with the red flag!" and assailed the national guard with stones. Lafayette ordered his men to fire, but in the air. The crowd was not intimidated with this, and resumed the attack; compelled by the obstinacy of the insurgents, Lafayette then ordered another discharge, a real and effective one. The terrified multitude fled, leaving many dead on the field. The disturbances now ceased, order was restored; but blood had flown, and the people never forgave Bailly or Lafayette the cruel necessity to which the crowd had driven them.

So it's pretty clear that Mignet, at least, believed that Lafayette gave the order. What is your source? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

My source, being far inferior to that, is only this website translated by google and myself: http://www.freinet.org/creactif/moulin/EXPOSES/HISTOIRE/REVOLTE/REV11.HTM

I believe I've taken up an idea and have run wild with it. I must have misinterpreted it all. I'm terribly sorry for causing this. See, Lafayette's an idol of mine and I was disillusioned by the barbaric happening-- but that's history, right? Not everything was how we want it to have been.

Ignorantly I went ahead, without thinking of checking the talk here, and changed the following pages: [1] [2]

I had changed [3], but you'll find it is back to the original entry.

Though, now I'm interested- where did you find your source? I'd really like to read more of the actual accounts like your source has.

I'm confused. You say you accept my citation, but you overwrote it in the article, citing yours? I'm really confused. Could you please explain what you actually intend to do here? I'm inclined to revert, but maybe I'm missing something?

In any event, an English translation of Mignet is easily found online. It's listed in the References section of the article, but for your convenience, it is at http://www.outfo.org/literature/pg/etext06/8hfrr10.txt. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Having gotten no answer, I'll go back to my version, which is to say Mignet's. I'm not wedded to this, but if it is to change, it ought to be based on another reasonably serious source, not a more-or-less-random website. -- Jmabel | Talk 11:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition?

The article needs to start out by stating exactly what the French Revolution was.

Bathrobe 8 Jan 2006

I kind of thought it already did. I've tried making a slight edit, is this clearer? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No counter-revolution?

Vendee rising? Royalists? Dieu et Roi? Maybe someone knowledgeable could start a counter revolution topic? Ksenon 22:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Revolt in the Vendée, Émigré (stub), Chouan (stub). That's about all I can find offhand. On a slightly less counter-revolutionary note Thermidorian Reaction. But yes, far more is needed. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Esp. references in this article. Oh well, I'll give it a shot soon when I find the time. Ksenon 07:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi protection

Using a cursory review, I discovered that at least 240 of the last 500 edits made to this article have been vandalism and reversion. Furthermore, most of the vandalism has been carried out by anonymous users, so semi-protection should take care of the problem. I would appreciate it if my arguments could be refuted here before protection is removed. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Splash, maybe I didn't make myself clear: the semi-protect is being used to prevent vandalism, not editing by anonymous users. Ingoolemo ^talk 16:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, vandalism remains a definite issue. In the three or so days this article has been unprotected, at least 28 of the <50 edits were vandalism and reversions. I'm not trying to stop anonymous users from editing, I'm trying to stop the vandalism. Ingoolemo ^talk 16:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that semi-protection is a temporary solution, when would you propose unprotecting the page? When the French Revolution is over? -Splash^talk 17:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As Zhou Enlai is claimed to have said to Henry Kissinger on pretty much this question, "It's too soon to tell." [4] And, yes, I know some sources say it wasy Mao, but I don't believe them. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is obviously serious. In the last week since it's been unprotected, it has been edited 97 times. Of these edits, at least 53 were vandalism and reversion—close to 70%. The solution used on George W. Bush that seems pretty effective is to periodically unprotect it to see how much vandalism occurs, and reprotect it if vandalism remains at an unacceptable level. Ingoolemo ^talk 22:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me to be a good provisional solution. - Jmabel | Talk 18:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I plan to do: I'll semi-protect the page now, and we'll leave it semi-protected until February 25. At that date, it will be unprotected for five days. If vandalism levels continue to be unacceptable during those five days, the page will be reprotected. Otherwise, it will be left alone until the problem escalates again. Ingoolemo ^talk 03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it will remain protected for the shortest period that dispels a given vandal. This is way off the level of George W. Bush, where permanent protection is highly controversion. There is no justification, nor mandate for it here. It can stay protected for a few days, tops. -Splash^talk 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page now, and will reprotected for 1-2 days if vandalism continues to be unacceptably high. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I will leave all further explanations at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=French+Revolution. If I forget to carry out the unprotections I promise, I will not object to Splash or another administrator stepping in. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In my experience reverting vandalized articles, topics covered in secondary schools such as this one are subject to high levels of childish, anonymous, vandalism. In these cases, vandalism falls under two categories: 1) The "Joe is gay" type, and 2) significant content deletion. I've also noticed that these types of articles are vandalized most frequently during U.S. school hours. I suggest we seriously consider identifying all articles commonly vandalized in these ways and semi-protect them. They are, in short, attracting the attention of an immature audience eager to experiment and not all that thoughtful about the extra work they make for the rest of us. OK, and my assistance in this matter comprises my own attempts to make up for my own youth... Rklawton 03:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:SEMI, it is quite clear that we don't use semiprotection to reduce or prohibit anonymous editing in general, and the poll that supported it was highly conditional on that. Article's don't get to invent themselves exceptions to policy just because they don't like anons. Remember also that semi restricts registered users too. -Splash^talk 21:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

French Revolution

Need info for my project, please put extra information about Maxmillian Robespierre and Marie Anotinette, and also Louis XVI!!!

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because the lead is much too short for such a long article, and I don't think the article looks well written at the moment. Only two references are mentioned which I am not sure is enough for such a long article on such an important topic. Worldtraveller 22:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly bogus article

I ran into the Stanley D'Panseax page a while ago and have not heard anything about this character, online nor in the few standard texts that I have checked. I believe it is a hoax. Can somebody verify this, please? I have nominated the article for deletion. If you think that it is a hoax, please vote for deletion here. Thanks. Julius.kusuma 20:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Lies, lies, lies

Lies, lies, lies! Who writes this stuff???

[quote] http://www.cephasministry.com/history_of_masonry_5.html

Masons admitted that they are initiators of revolutions and wars French Revolution.

Today Freemasonry openly acknowledges the French Revolution as its work. In the chamber of Deputies during the session on July 1, 1904 the Marquis de Rosanbo stated:

"Freemasonry has worked in a hidden but constant manner to prepare the revolution... We are then in complete agreement on the point that freemasonry was the only author of the revolution, and the applause which I receive from the Left, and to which I am little accustomed, proves, gentlemen, that you acknowledge with me that it was masonry which made the French revolution."

Mr. Jumel: "We do more than acknowledge it, we proclaim it." [Source: Mgsr. Henri Delassus, La Conjuration anti-chrétienne, vol. 1, 1910, p. 146; quoted in de Poncins, op. cit.,p.30]. [/quote]

Go to Bavarian Illuminati and Weishaupt. There you'll find THE REAL reasons for the French Revolution.

Why is there no information of horrific massacres here? Slaughtering children, raping and killing nuns? And that's just scratching the sufrace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.25.5.69 (talk • contribs) 16 Feb 2006.

The Appearance of Factions

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

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

The National Constituent Assembly

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

Voting by head

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

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

Proto-Revolutionary Activity--Main article(?)

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

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

An article on representatives-on-mission

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

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

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

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

results...

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

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

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

The royal kool?

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

Dshaffer 01:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Liberty Leading The People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some interesting resources to explore.[5] [6] [7] [8] Take a look and let us know what you think. Rklawton 18:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LLPT Resources

I found another resource LLPT [9]

I also found this very interesting: "[Delacroix had] the ability to unite allegory and history, and mould into a tumultuous whole figures mythological, historical, literary and real." [10] With this in mind, it doesn't seem to be appropriate to say that Delacroix intended to paint a specific scene from a specific revolution. Delacroix was a French master[11], and I think he entitled his painting exactly as he intended: "Liberty Leading the People". It commemorates (his words), but not necessarily specifically depicts the July Revolution. The painting is more about French people fighting for and along side of liberty with liberty as a multi-faceted ideal. One could fairly say this image represent the entire French struggle to free themselves from oppression. Given its powerful expression, it would be nice to extend this to all human-kind, but Delacroix limited this sentiment by including the French tri-color.

One may argue that the French Revolution was not complete until the French were free from an absolute monarchy. Thus, what began in the 18th century, ended much later. [12] Rklawton 05:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

LLTP recommendation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, there are three questions to address...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the section about "Marianne"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are several other images that could be used.

Logo

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

Caption for LLTP

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

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

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

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

17 - 21 january 1793

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

Causes

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

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

Linguistic opression

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

So do it. Be bold!

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

Bulldreck. Nothing more than any other advanced country did.

addition to aricle

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

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

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

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

The Committee of Public Safety and Robespierre

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

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

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