Talk:French Revolution

Citation needed

Citation needed to the phrase: "Despite succeeding in gaining independence for the 500000 thousand Colonies, France was severely indebted by the American Revolutionary War."

My suggestion is to add this link: https://www.worldbyisa.com/15-historical-places-related-to-the-french-revolution/ exactly this information in the 'French Revolution causes'section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldbyisa (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It didn't "culminate" in Napoleon but was perverted by him and his followers

Napoleon fundamentally does not represent the ideas of the French revolution. Quite the contrary. It was therefor a weakness of the revolution period to end in Napoleon. However the article does not make tha clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.235.125.68 (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

American Influence on the French Revolution

Question: What should we do with the paragraph that says that the American revolution was an inspiration to the French Revolution, currently in the lede?

Good evening all,

I have come across a paragraph discussing the American revolution as a precursor or inspiration to the French Revolution. At first the suspect paragraph was in the lede, which I have now moved to the causes sections, as it seems more appropriate.

In doing so, I reviewed the sources involved for this paragraph, and found them to be lacking. In particular, these two claims are using rather unconvincing, and I'm uncertain of their veracity. Acebulf (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Claim 1

• Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette saw the French Revolution as a direct consequence of the American Revolution, sending the key to the Bastille, the symbol of the Ancien Régime, to George Washington, where it hangs today in Mount Vernon.
  • (Citation https://www.humanitiestexas.org/news/articles/gordon-s-wood-revolutionary-origins-civil-war)

Discussion

From the original letter send by Lafayette to Washington, with which the key was bundled, that this was a gesture of goodwill towards Washington, which Lafayette considered a mentor.

Give me leave, My dear General, to present you With a picture of the Bastille just as it looked a few days after I Had ordered its demolition, with the Main Kea of that fortress of despotism—it is a tribute Which I owe as A Son to My Adoptive father, as an aid de Camp to My General, as a Missionary of liberty to its patriarch.

ref

I believe the conclusion of that phrase (highlighted in italic) might be open to interpretation that supports the view of Claim 1. However, the citation currently in the article mentions this in passing, and seems to be more an opinion of the historian than an accepted view amongst historians. With additional sourcing, this might be acceptable, but as-is, it is unsupported.

Claim 2

• The Americans' victory over the British may have been the "single greatest impact" on the start of the French Revolution.(Citation https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-american-revolution-influence-the-french-revolution/)

Discussion

This is certainly not a claim accepted by historians. The cited source reads more like an op-ed than an actual article. Regardless, if we are to include a statement that has that strong of a claim, then we would need at least some kind of scholarly source, and even then, it should probably be phrased like: "Historian John Johnson states that "the Americans' successful rebellion over the British may have been a strong causal factor in starting the French Revolution".

---

As it currently stands, those two claims should probably be removed. It is entirely possible that better sourcing exists, but I have not been able to find it.

With this, I open the floor for discussions as to what we should do with these statements.

Cheers, Acebulf (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• • I think both should be taken out. Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added the RfC to "politics, government, and the law". Perhaps User:Yapperbot might recruit more interested parties that way, or if not, then at least it'd attract people from being on another, somewhat related RfC list. (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 17:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

In general, if a claim is countered, or is not accepted by most folks, we should put the name of the claimant in the text and not bury it in the citation. Thus, "Historian Zed has written, 'Wye was a better president than Kew,'" rather than the flat-out statement "Wye was a better president than Kew." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• • Additionally, since an editor disagrees, we can stretch this RFC to talk about whether this subject should be the 2nd paragraph of the article. Acebulf (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

    The paragraph being included in the lede violates WP:FRINGE, and would require significant sourcing to demonstrate that most historians agree to this, for it to even be acceptable. I think it should either be moved to the causes section, the accompanying article, or be removed entirely. I have notified the editor involved in the reverting so that they can comment here with their justification. Acebulf (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

One thing I can just mention is that I'm pretty sure that Schama, Simon. Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution. does support the position that, as I believe he states, "The French Revolution started in America". I have it on order from my library, and perhaps can confirm soon. Don't know if that is helpful at all. Let me know if I have put my oar in where it does not belong.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

That would be a good addition to the causes section, as I believe there is an argument to be made there, and it at least deserves a mention at Causes of the French Revolution, if not in this very article. A citation either supporting the above claims, or replacing them with more accurate ones could be welcome. I still don't believe it should be held as the one-true-reason by including it in the lede of this main article. Acebulf (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What Schama says (pages 64-67) is the fiscal and legislative weaknesses of the Ancien Regime were further exposed by the enormous debt incurred by the French state in fighting the American War, and their inability to finance the debt was among the causes of the Revolution. Which isn't the same as saying one necessarily led to the other. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It would be a bit historically naive to assume the French Revolution occurred in a vacuum with no inspirational incentive from the American Revolution just a few years prior. That the National Assembly of France used the American Declaration of Independence to draft the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, by itself, tells us that the French Revolution was greatly inspired by the American Revolution. Statements to this effect from notable figures like Lafayette tend to substantiate that idea. Rather then embarking on a two-dimensional discussion, it should be focused on the idea as to 'what degree' the American Revolution inspired the French Revolution, not whether if it had nothing at all to do with matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between 'influenced' and 'inspired'; yes, events don't occur in a vacuum, but that implies a two way exchange of ideas. Many of the signers of the Declaration were secular rationalists - I will admit I've only glanced at the article on the American War, but despite the huge acres of space devoted to almost every other topic, neither that or those on individuals like Franklin even mention the debt owed to Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Rousseau.

Since Jefferson wrote both Declarations, its not surprising they resembled each other; Lafayette (who presented it to the Assembly) was out of power by 1790 and lucky to escape with his life. So its misleading to use that as an example of 'inspiration'. The two events were very very different in both causes and outcomes; when Americans today complain about 'deadlock in Washington', they miss the point. The framers of the Constitution assumed they'd reached perfection; the system of checks and balances was designed to prevent change. Modern historians argue as to whether 'Revolution' is even the right word for what happened in the US; that's why Wolfe Tone and other leaders of the 1798 Irish Rebellion specifically referenced the French example, not the American.

So two points; (a) 'Inspired' is the wrong word, because it implies assumptions on the causes and impact of the French Revolution that simply aren't correct; (b) if you want to include the flow of ideas (which I'd support), then there's work to be done on numerous articles (staring with the ARW), not only here. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

that implies a two way exchange of ideas

Which were abundant, Robinvp11. American state constitutions had been translated into French and were circulating through French salons as well as published by the French press six years before the French Revolution.

Benjamin Franklin discussed the American Revolution and its democratic ambitions with liberal aristocrats, who even had a bust of Franklin sculpted to add to their collection of great men. Not to mention the direct exchanges with other statesmen heavily involved with the American Revolution such as Philip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson, William Short, and Gouverneur Morris. American Fouding Fathers were equally as stimulated by Montesquieu and other Enlightenment thinkers.

The American publications were the most influential revolutionary documents in France before the fall of the Bastille.

Modern historians argue as to whether 'Revolution' is even the right word for what happened in the US; that's why Wolfe Tone and other leaders of the 1798 Irish Rebellion specifically referenced the French example, not the American

Neo-progressive historians use social misery, economic deprivation, blood and gore as their gauge of "revolution". Obviously, the American revolution is not brooding enough for them.

If we measure radicalism by the amount of change that took place – by transformations in the relationships that bound people to each other – then the American Revolution was not conservative at all; on the contrary: it was as radical and revolutionary as any in history.

Wood, as well, who has dedicated the bulk of his career to understanding the formation of the American republic, explicitly states that the American revolution "decisively affected the course of subsequent history." 021120x (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Take out. More tired after the fact by diplomats and politicians, they are totally different in causes.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Robinvp11 — "Influenced" is too generic an idea. It begs the question - 'How' was the French Revolution influenced? Extortion?  No. Bribes?  No. Political pressure from the U.S.?  No. Jefferson indeed wrote both declarations, and that they both resemble each other isn't a coincidence, so to suggest that the one declaration was of no inspiration behind the French declaration again seems a bit naive. That Lafayette escaped with his life really has no bearing on his support for the French Revolution, and his time spent in America fighting for its independence would certainly have its inspirational aspects in regards to his support for the French Revolution. It's understood how the term "influenced" is more neutral, but if it's exclusively used it must be qualified as to how this influence was effected. The term "inspired" seems rather obvious and straight forward, and though it may not come off as neutral, it seems to be the more accurate term and should be employed. Are you saying there are no sources that support the idea of inspired? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Gentz stated that France used the American Revolution as the justification for their own revolution and that it was impossible not to perceive a desire on the part of the French to imitate the Americans. That is fairly unambiguous. "Inspired" is the correct term, and it should be included. 021120x (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The question is not if one person claimed it, but rather since this part is in the lede, whether this is the mainstream opinion from historians. Otherwise giving prominence to that marginal view would violate WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. I would have no problem including the paragraph (as currently worded) lower in the text, perhaps as part of the "causes" section, but you have reverted me when I have done so without explanation. Acebulf (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Leave in. An abundance of sources already demonstrate an active exchange of ideas. The inspiration drawn from the Americans is not a matter of "if", but, "how much".

The political ideas of the Enlightenment – Locke’s natural rights, Rousseau’s popular sovereignty, Montesquieu’s separation of powers – had once been political abstractions, little more than ideas in books. But the birth of the United States showed that these ideas could serve as a blueprint for modern government.

Disputing this promotes a fringe perspective, and negates the neutrality of the article. 021120x (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove from the Lead, for reasons listed below.

(1) In general, there are concerns over the tendency of English-speaking Wikipedia editors to take an Anglo-centric approach to historical events, which to me seems validated by this entire discussion. The article on the Revolution in French Wikipedia makes no reference to it being inspired by the ARW, and doesn't even mention Lafayette - only in American accounts is he deemed central to those events.

(2) So the idea challenging this approach promotes a fringe perspective, and negates the neutrality of the article is Orwellian double-think; the onus should be to explain why apparently the French have got it wrong ("it" being the most important event in the last five hundred years of their history, which still influences French attitudes and politics today). I'm English and I only got involved in this discussion because having done Revolutionary France as part of my history degree, I was surprised to find such a claim front and centre in the Lead;

(3) In this specific case, doing so fundamentally misrepresents both causes and outcomes, and displays a crucial lack of understanding of the Revolution's significance, or why it continues to upset right-wing commentators in a way that is not true of the American version.

(4) Discussions of Lafayette, copies of US state constitutions circulating in French salons etc are irrelevant, because they had almost no bearing on the course of the French Revolution. Liberal aristocrats like Lafayette lost control of political events as soon as the Third Estate took control in May 1789, which for many is actually the start of the Revolution. They objected to taxes, economic dislocation, the entrenched privileges of a tiny minority, lack of justice, the misery of the urban proletariat etc, not some fanciful Rousseau vision about the nobility of the American landscape, and Lafayette's daddy issues.

(5) I've done you the courtesy of reading the Sources provided and I note you follow Woods (see below) in claiming Neo-progressive historians use social misery, economic deprivation, blood and gore as their gauge of "revolution". That's a decidedly non-neutral POV statement, but on Page 3, Woods also denounces Neo-progressive historians who try to interpret the American Revolution in terms of the French. He specifically denies such a link - you can't have it both ways.

(6) Of the other sources provided; the Annie Jourdan article talks about influence (which I've already said is fine), not inspired. A website called Alpha History cannot be considered a better source than Jonathan Fenby or Simon Schama, who don't agree; doesn't make them right but again it speaks to which of us is proposing a fringe view, which should not appear in the Lead;

(7) For the third time; Grenz was a conservative reactionary who felt the French Revolution was the cause of nearly every single evil in Europe. He approved of the American Revolution, because he viewed it as essentially conservative, his only caveat being they should have made George Washington a king or dictator, rather than all that Republic nonsense (his view, not mine btw). HE IS NOT A NEUTRAL SOURCE; it's like making the views of David Dukes central to an article on the Black Lives Matter movement. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"the Annie Jourdan article talks about influence" | This is being reduced to a game of semantics. As mentioned by Gwillhickers:

"Influenced" is too generic an idea. It begs the question – 'How' was the French Revolution influenced?

That influence was primarily inspiration. The "influence" Annie Jourdan herself describes is largely inspiration – which she even explicitly states throughout her analysis:

most important of these contacts were thus books and newspapers and the interpretations and ideas they inspired

Nevertheless, French financial problems and the American and Dutch revolutions inspired the French to think of radical reforms and to justify popular sovereignty

As for Lafayette, since 1783 he had displayed a copy of the Declaration of Independence in the entry hall of his house next to an empty frame "waiting for the declaration of the Rights of France." This declaration would later inspire Lafayette's draft.

Further, Jourdan had no knowledge of the pedantic dichotomy as was ascribed to these terms in this discussion.

However, I see that the present alteration of the lede paragraph has removed not only any mention of inspiration from the Americans, but even any mention of influence – an action for which no basis can be derived even from this discussion.

"He specifically denies such a link - you can't have it both ways." | A complete miscomprehension of the source. Wood says the fallacy is to interpret the American Revolution through the lens of the French – often done by neo-progressives, and the inverse of what is being discussed here. That statement has no relevance to the focus of this discussion. Your original comment was that "modern historians" debate whether or not 'Revolution' is the correct term for what occurred in North America. The point of the reference, which has been missed, was that this is not a consensus, as was implied, but the view of a specific school of thought.

Wood himself is of the belief that the French saw their own revolution as a direct consequence of the American Revolution (or, at least, Lafayette did):

Americans believed that the French Revolution of 1789, a decade or so later, was a direct consequence of their revolution. And Lafayette thought so too, which is why he sent the key to the Bastille, the symbol of the Ancien Régime, to George Washington, where it hangs today in Mount Vernon.

"HE IS NOT A NEUTRAL SOURCE". | This is an example of a genetic fallacy, as is the knee-jerk disregard of Llewellyn and Thompson. His observation on the inspiration the French drew directly from the Americans has no bearing on whether or not he approved or disapproved of the Revolution, and does not warrant being mindlessly disregarded anymore than an observation from "David Duke" that BLM began in response to perceived social injustices should be disregarded simply because "David Duke" said it (to utilize the above-provided example). Gentz saw the revolutions and their impacts unfold firsthand.

Continued point-blank disregard further raises questions regarding neutrality. 021120x (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to respond to what you've written, rather than ignoring the bits I don't fancy; perhaps you could do the same.

(1) Quick reminder; this discussion began because you made extensive changes to a version of the Lead that had been stable for years, without first discussing it on the TP or providing an explanation. We are discussing it because another editor viewed the change as incorrect.

(2) You've accused me three times of lack of neutrality and continued point-blank disregard of different perspectives. I've been polite, I've read the sources provided, tried to adjust the wording and even included a reference to Woods in the Lead. That's despite the fact I think you are presenting an American-centric view of history rejected by most American historians, and fundamentally out of sync with an encyclopedia for global users.

(3) The Lead summarises the article content and reflects the generally accepted view, with alternatives addressed in the body of the article. Let's assume you know better than French Wikipedia, dozens of historians and all the editors who have worked on this article since 2005; so far, that seems to be based on a book published 30 years ago and a very partial reading of two sources. You still need to show it reflects the majority view; some people suggest you can cure Coronavirus by injecting bleach, they think they're right, they might even be right, they're still a minority;

(4) Neither Woods or Gentz are considered unbiased or mainstream commentators on the French Revolution. I've been through Gentz already (unfortunately I'm not intelligent enough to understand the relevance of 'genetic fallacy' to his credibility). Read some of the reviews of 'American Radicalism'; it was widely panned by American historians and Woods' reputation has never recovered. It was part of a triumphalist trend in early 90s American historiography, personified by Gingrich and Buchanan, who were big supporters. You're welcome to argue he's a victim of 'liberal bias' but his is not a mainstream view. Which is the point.

(5) You cannot keep using "Lafayette" and "French" as interchangeable eg And Lafayette thought so too, which is why he sent the key to the Bastille, the symbol of the Ancien Régime, to George Washington, where it hangs today in Mount Vernon.

(6) Surprised I'm having to explain this but ok; Inspire = implies creation, Influence = guided by. Or in consultant-speak 'Ideation' versus 'Implementation'. The Sony Walkman inspired the concept of mobile music; everything since then such as I-Pods have been influenced by those principles (I don't need you to agree, you asked). Rather than pedantic dichotomy, they are very different.

(7) Since Jourdan devotes considerable space to the distinction between 'causes' and 'origins', and Influence appears in the title, that's probably what she means. And having two friends who are professional historians, titles are very carefully thought out, particularly when published in academic journals. You'll never agree, so lets not waste time because it doesn't matter. Her article does not support your claim;

(8) Jourdan is challenging French User:021120x equivalents who suggest their Revolution was the starting point for everyone else. She argues the Scots, French, American, Swiss, Dutch were part of a community of ideas, who influenced each other; that's very different from what you're suggesting. In fact, she gives the Scots and even the Dutch a more prominent role in terms of direct impact on the French Revolution. I mentioned previously (a long time back, so you may need to remind yourself) talking about a community of ideas is fine, and could usefully be included in the nightmare of detail that constitutes the article on the ARW. And the revised wording of the Lead reflects that.

(9) Knee-jerk disregard of Llewellyn and Thompson; here's what I said. A website called Alpha History cannot be considered a better source than Jonathan Fenby or Simon Schama, who don't agree; doesn't make them right but speaks to which of us is proposing a fringe view,; I'm simply following Wikipedia guidelines on Sources; maybe read them yourself?

(10) You have not made a case for including your view in the Lead. Simple as. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

References

New claim(s)

Some early proponents of the French Revolution were influenced by the American Revolution; though this quickly diminished over time.

Jourdan, A. (2007). "The "alien origins" of the French Revolution: American, Scottish, Genevan, and Dutch influences". Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Western Society for French History. 35: 185–205. Retrieved 11 October 2020. These contacts, which increased after the American War of Independence, could be interpreted as causes of the French Revolution. Although they did not directly give rise to the Revolution, we might understand them as second or third rank issues or as indirect challenges to the Old Regime.

Rossignol, Marie-Jeanne (2006). "The American Revolution in France: Under the Shadow of the French Revolution". Europe's American Revolution. pp. 51–71. doi:10.1057/9780230288454_3. Retrieved 11 October 2020.

From a global perspective, the American and French Revolutions together kickstarted an "Age of Revolution" which spread across the Atlantic.

Hunt, Lynn. "2". In Armitage, David; Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (eds.). The Age of Revolutions in Global Context, C. 1760-1840. Macmillan International Higher Education. ISBN 978-1-137-01415-3. Retrieved 11 October 2020.

Rossignol, Marie-Jeanne (2006). "The American Revolution in France: Under the Shadow of the French Revolution". Europe's American Revolution. pp. 51–71. doi:10.1057/9780230288454_3. Retrieved 11 October 2020.

I think this is the direction we should be going in. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I've amended the Lede to reflect this; comments welcome. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Very nicely phrased. Excellent suggestion and implementation. Acebulf (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I could not be more happy with the recent changes that have been made to the lead! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary requires more detailed explanation, likely in inclusion of additional section as earlier proposed. Does not adequately address all concerns raised. Pertinent information is omitted; touches on "what" but not "how". 021120x (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)