Talk:French Revolution/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: Basically, during the period of the National Constituent Assembly. - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Appearance of Factions

message: (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)
thread_title:  The National Constituent Assembly 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Voting by head 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proto-Revolutionary Activity--Main article(?) 

message: 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)
thread_title: An article on representatives-on-mission

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  results... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. - Jmabel | Talk 21:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The royal kool? 

message: I found another resource LLPT  
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."    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, 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.  Rklawton 05:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LLPT Resources

message: 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)
thread_title: Logo

message: 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)
thread_title: Caption for LLTP

message: 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)
thread_title:  Causes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  addition to aricle 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Committee of Public Safety and Robespierre 

message: There are several dead links to www.outfo.org, probably all intended to link to History of the French Revolution from 1789 to 1814. I couldn't find substitute links for them. Art LaPella 01:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was the Project Gutenberg text of Mignet. It can be accessed on the Internet Archive at http://web.archive.org/web/20050307193925/http://www.outfo.org/literature/pg/etext06/8hfrr10.txt, but we should see if we can find something more convenient than the Internet Archive. - Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext06/7hfrr10.txt On the Gutenberg site should be identical, I'll substitute that. - Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've now changed  accordingly, and replaced the inline citations with indications of what chapter in Mignet; if someone wants to follow a link, it's in the "references" section. - Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead links

message: Needs inline citations to go any further ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: The last 25 edits in the past few days have resulted in no change, just editors' labor reverting repeated vandalism. Why doesn't this page get a semi-protection from anonymous IPs? Are administrators  too busy on their bulletin boards and mailing lists?--Wetman 17:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article gets protected every once in a while (see the log for this page), but most pages won't stay that way forever. In this case, the vandalism seems to have picked up again recently, since schools have started and kids have to keep themselves busy somehow. If you think the vandalism is too rampant, report it at Requests for page protection, making snide comments at a talk page isn't very helpful. - Bobet 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally wouldn't mind if it was protected, but there's not much point in it in the long run. This gets vandalized more often because it's a high-profile article, not because of any passing popularity or concentrated effort. It's going to get vandalized at random times pretty much all through the school year, and if it's protected, the vandals will just edit some other page that pops into their mind first, which might not be on so many people's watchlists. The only real solution would be to permanently semi-protect this article, but that's unlikely to happen (because people don't want to do that to every high-profile article, because being editable by anyone isn't always bad).  - Bobet 09:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, I think Bobet is probably right on all points. --Wetman 16:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bobet writes, "... because being editable by anyone isn't always bad." As for the semi-protection, I think you'd be totally justified. I think you guys nailed down this subject to an excellent degree. I'd have absolutely no business editing anything on this page. You really would have to be an expert on the subject of french history (IMHO). Anyone that shows up with new content or corrections would probably want to bring them up on the talk page first anyway. Great page, beautify done. Jeff Carr 20:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be really useful if the vandalism and the respective reverts did not show up on the history page. The history page is really helpful and useful if it shows constructive diffs of the content. Jeff Carr 19:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: This article makes no mention of the August 1791 Declaration of Pillnitz by the Austrian and Prussian Monarchies. The declaration called on all European powers to act in concert to restore Louis XVI to his rightful authority. It predated the French declaration of war against Austria (April 1792), and is an important contributing factor to that declaration. As such, the article should include at least a mention of the declaration in the passage asserting that France declared war on Austria. I intend to make this change, unless anyone has objections.
--Richard Scrivener, Centre for Arab & Islamic Studies, Australian National University 07:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this should be there. - Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Improvements: 2006

message: Can someone please clean this page up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.112.165.178 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you are referring to, so I'm guessing it has been done already. - Jmabel | Talk 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there a bunch of Garbage at the top of this page? 

message: Does this need to be considered? This would also lead to a discussion of events in St Domingue/Haiti--Mjs110 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We certainly could do that; I think it might be better in a side article (to be added to the French Revolution article series) with a paragraph or two and a  to direct people to it. We do already have Declaration of the Rights of Man, but it is rather cursory. Haitian Revolution also looks pretty lightweight. Someone could take on a pretty major project on human rights in the French Revolution. I'm sure it would get well beyond the scope of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concept of Rights

message: Four years are compacted into a very short space; no mention of the jeunesse dorée or the neo-Jacobins.   More on the Thermidorian Reacion?--Mjs110 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this could certainly be expanded upon. I did the work down to autumn 1792 and to a lesser extent through the Convention (in winter 2004, and including about a dozen major article besides this one); someone then seemed to be taking over & I got out to the way & did other things. But it seems that he came in a flurry and then didn't really follow through all that much, so the years of the Directory and (to a lesser extent) even the Convention are not as well covered as the early years. - Jmabel | Talk 02:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your work, Jmabel.  I'll think about sandboxing some sections on the later years.--Mjs110 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Directory

message: Does this section risk conflating the Great Fear, which was a relatively short-lived affair, dated precisely by G Lefebvres, and the more widespread revolt in the provinces, which predated the prise de la Bastille and continued until 1792?--Mjs110 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what section you have in mind; the Great Fear is barely mentioned. We seem to have it correctly pinned in the summer of '89 (or was there an intermediate stage of the article I missed?). - Jmabel | Talk 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking at it again, it reads fine, without confusing matters - I've added some detail to the Great Fear instead.--Mjs110 10:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Fear

message: The similarities are striking. Worth mentioning?
-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.66 (talk • contribs).
:Wouldn't such material belong better at Revolution? --Wetman 05:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By this answer you mean that in some sense all revolutions are strikingly similar? Well that may be the case but then a more accurate sentence would be "the French revolution has striking similarities to every other revolution in history in that they were, you know, revolutions". However it would still be unsourced... Massimamanno 19:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison to the Russian Revolution?

message: This page is constructed along a largely timeline structure, with the early events at the top of the page and the later events towards the bottom.  However, the French Revolution consisted of a great many events, so to cover each event in its proper sequence requires a tiny paragraph for the event that happened at a given place in the timeline.  Unfortunately, this breaks up any unified narative on a given subject.  For example, the impacts on the Church is divided among several bits of the timeline.  
Since we already have a Timeline page, we might do a better discussion of subjects on this page, by grouping content on each subject into discussions with overlapping times.  For example, while each governmental reorganization should probably be its own subject, interactions with the KING span several and probably should be its owns section.  Similar with the CHURCH, WARS, ARISTOCRACY, maybe FACTIONS, etc.  The Gomm 20:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those topics have potential, but I think not as an organizing principle for this article. This is the "top-level" article on the revolution, and I think the single most important thing is to give a picture of how the events unfolded. Many of these others would make good articles (or good enhancements to existing articles: for example, interactions with the king certainly belong in Louis XVI of France). A good place to work on issues of the church would be Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution; there is also Civil Constitution of the Clergy; probably we could use an article Religion in the French Revolution, and some of the material in those two articles could be refactored to that. We have French Revolutionary Wars; I'm not sure how one would do an article specifically focused on the aristocracy, but I'd be interested to see one; and right now, our nearest thing to an overview of factions is at Glossary of the French Revolution#Political groupings: certainly that has potential for expansion to an article. - Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline vs Subject structure