Talk:French Revolution/Archive 1

message: ::  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)
thread_title: "King" and "king"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changes to article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: 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 ()? NightBeAsT 21:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Church 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Death by fart? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  how 

message: I removed the following from the first paragraph of the "Causes" section: "They have estimated that more than 37,000 innocent citizens were guillotined."
# Without some indication of who "they" are, this is uncited.
# This number is higher than any I recall seeing, so I am not letting it pass without citation.
# 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)
thread_title:  Innocents guillotined 

message: 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)
thread_title: Definition?

message: Vendee rising? Royalists? Dieu et Roi? Maybe someone knowledgeable could start a counter revolution topic? Ksenon 22:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  No counter-revolution? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Given that semi-protection is a temporary solution, when would you propose unprotecting the page? When the French Revolution is over? -Splashtalk 17:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As Zhou Enlai is claimed to have said to Henry Kissinger on pretty much this question, "It's too soon to tell."  And, yes, I know some sources say it wasy Mao, but I don't believe them.  -- Jmabel | Talk 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Seems to me to be a good provisional solution. - Jmabel | Talk 18:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. -Splashtalk 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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. -Splashtalk 21:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SEMI|Semi protection]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article removed from [[Wikipedia:Good articles]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Possibly bogus article