Talk:French Revolution

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2025

§Constitutional Monarchy, paragraph 2. Please remove superfluous words, "attacking the". NESMRTNOST (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect execution date for Carrier

The sentence suggesting Jean-Baptiste Carrier was executed on 24 March 1794 with Hébert is inaccurate. Carrier was executed on 16 December 1794, months after Robespierre’s fall. Suggest correction.

Hi, just wanted to point out that the article says Jean-Baptiste Carrier was executed on 24 March 1794 with Hébert and 19 others. This is incorrect — Carrier was not executed until 16 December 1794, several months after Robespierre’s fall. Please consider correcting that sentence. Sources: Carrier Wikipedia article. Thanks! Yahsyahaha (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The cited source didn't say this and I have made the change. The entire article needs a reference check and re-write from start to finish. I hope to start on this in the near future. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

FYI, I inserted the Schama reference but someone else added "including Carrier". I'll go back through the other Schama ones and check for accuracy - doing all the references in this article will take time.

I'm not sure what "rewrite" means here - to me, it suggests large sections of this article are incorrect, and I'm curious as to which fall into this category.

IF you do, please please please don't make it any longer. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely intend to make it shorter and, if necessary, move some detail to sub-articles. But I think we need a thorough rewrite rather than tinkering with wording here and there. It's not that large sections are incorrect, but rather that they include some contestable interpretations that shouldn't be written in the wikipedia voice and some content that has nothing to do with the citations given. If you would like to help out, or even just give it a read through when I've finished each section. That would be great. My aim would be to get it to Good Article status which an article of this profile deserves. I still have it on my list of things to do but every time I get in the mood for it life intervenes. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2025 for the topic "Taille" and "The 3 Estates"

Hello! I would like to suggest some changes to the Wiki page, French Revolution In that page there should also be included "taille", the direct tax paid by the 3rd estate directly to the state which is in NCERT SSC History Class 9th book of the 2024 version page 4. (NCERT is an official publisher in India which is run by the Indian Govenment)

The viewer should also know the meaning of estate and the meaning and powers off the different estates like the Clergy or the Nobility.

Thank you! I hope you implement the amendments suggested by me. TejasGuptaWiki (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. meamemg (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Article needs a thorough revision

@Robinvp11 Thanks for your recent edits which have improved the readability of the text. However, some of the wording changes in the section on the Estates General were puzzling as the previous wording more accurately reflected the sources. For example, tax inequality and seigneurial dues headed the grievances in the cahiers de doleances for the third estate, not the estates as a whole. If we want to make a general statement on the content of the cahiers, this can be done but it's probably not going to add much to our understanding as the first estate's grievances were mainly about higher stipends for parish priests, payment of tithes directly to parish priests, direct elections for synods, equal access to senior church offices etc.

You added, "In many ways, the First Estate was more representative of the people than the Third, which was dominated by middle class professionals." This is repetitive because we make it clear who dominated the Third estate later. It's also dubious because it is based solely on Schama who actually argues that it was the country curates (not the first estate as a whole) who in some ways were more representative of the majority of Frenchman because about half were on low incomes and they lived in the country side. But Doyle makes the point they they represented no one but themselves: their interest was in improving their position vis a vis the senior church leaders. The peasantry was mostly anticlerical and I doubt they thought the parish priests represented them.

In the lead, I restored the previous wording: "About 16,000 people were sentenced by the Revolutionary Tribunal and executed in the Reign of Terror." Someone else had already changed it to 40,000 executed, which is a speculative figure including people who were massacred, died in custody, suffered summary executions after unauthorised trials etc. I think it's best to give this specific figure and leave the detail to the body of the article.

Also, in the section Political crisis and fall of the Girondins you added the phrase: "in what proved a disastrous strategic move" to the sentence "many [Girondins] left Paris for the provinces." This looks like an editorial comment because I can't see any evidence which shows that this is the consensus of reliable secondary sources. Indeed the entire section (and many others in the article) looks like some editor's interpretation of the French revolution to which someone has appended a few random citations with large page ranges. The one citation for most of this section is Shusterman (2013) pp. 143-173, but that source doesn't support most of the content of the section. For example, as far as I can see, he doesn't say: "The Girondins hoped war would...provide an excuse for rising prices and food shortages" nor does he give the quote: "if by your incessant rebellions something befalls the representatives of the nation, Paris will be obliterated". And his interpretation of events is very different from that given in the article. This is what I meant when I wrote elsewhere that all the citations need to be thoroughly checked and the entire article needs a rewrite based on the consensus of reliable secondary sources. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

"The peasantry was mostly anticlerical and I doubt they thought the parish priests represented them." That's a very sweeping statement, which demonstrates how hard it is not to provide at least some editorial input.

I hold no particular brief for Schama but it seems odd to dismiss his analysis of the clergy as 'dubious' because he's the only source quoted for that claim, but accept that of Doyle as accurate, despite again being the only source.

No matter, I promised myself I'd stay out of this. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Section on Slavery

It might just be me, but I have a problem with using the word "coloured" in this section. First, its a very specific racial designation used in Apartheid-era South Africa, and second, I don't remember hearing any English-speaker use this term. Its outdated, potentially racist and should be replaced. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

It used to be very widely used indeed in both North America and the UK (see the NAACP, still so titled), and often considered the most neutral and polite term by the media and politicians etc. Are you a very young person? Any term specifically intended to designate "racial" characteristics can I suppose be called "potentially racist" - that doesn't get us very far. Johnbod (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure thinly concealed insults are the best way to address questions like this, but since you ask, I'm in my sixties and have spent most of my life living and working overseas.

There are many things that were once "very widely used indeed" that are no longer considered acceptable, so that is not an argument. I'm also puzzled by the suggestion this is the "most neutral and polite term", since this what Google says (as an example, I just picked the simplest and quickest);

"In British usage, the term refers to "a person who is wholly or partly of non-white descent," and its use is generally regarded as antiquated or offensive. Other terms are preferable, particularly when referring to a single ethnicity."

And this article from the BBC seems to undermine the suggestion "coloured" is acceptable in the US https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-30999175. There is a paragraph titled "Why using Coloured is offensive", which runs as follows:In the UK the term is, at best, seen as old fashioned and "something your gran might say". But it's also regarded as a highly offensive racial slur which recalls a time when casual racism was a part of everyday life. In the US, because of the country's recent era of racial segregation, it is among the most offensive words for describing a black person.Robinvp11 (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I will check the sources but I believe this is the official term and also what the descendants of former slaves of mixed-descent call themselves in the relevant former French colonies today. The apartheid governments of South Africa also used the terms Whites and Blacks and that hasn't stopped people using these terms to describe themselves and others to this day. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Again, AI suggests "when referring to a person of mixed race in French, métis/métisse is generally the preferred and safest option." I'd like to see some examples of coloured in current usage, thanks in advance. My French is not perfect, but its ok, and having visited and worked in numerous French former colonies, I've never heard anyone refer to themselves as "coloured", so frankly I'd be surprised.

Having done a bit more research, the official term in France is "mixed race" or "métis". This should be changed in the article.Robinvp11 (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It's better to check the reliable sources than AI. The author of the article cited is Frédéric Régent who is a black French historian from Guadeloupe (ie one of the former slave colonies we discuss). So if he is happy to use the term "coloured" in this context then I think we should respect this. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Where do you think AI gets its information from?

Again, you are relying on a single source to make your case, which you have previously argued per se makes any statement open to question. This is English-language Wikipedia and I can find numerous sources (eg the BBC one above, which you might care to read) which say its offensive.

You cannot simply dismiss that in this manner. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to see factual evidence that this is "the official term" used in France or elsewhere, because I simply don't believe it. There is no dispute the term in English is racist and Wikipedia needs to reflect that. I will escalate this issue within Wikipedia, or we can change it now; let me know what you prefer. Robinvp11 (talk) Robinvp11 (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

FYI I've looked at the quote from Frédéric Régent; in the opening line which uses him as the Source, the sentence starts "people of colour", which is very much not the same as "coloured".

He is then quoted again below in conjunction with another Source (Doyle) which does say "Coloured", but it's not clear which of the two uses that phrase, or indeed if either of them do. The direct quote from Frédéric Régent in the last paragraph of this section also uses the phrase "people of colour", so I'm not sure your argument holds up in any case. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It is indeed Frédéric Régent who uses the phrase multiple times and I suggest you actually read the source before making assumptions. The phrase isn't contentious just because you don't like the wording of a black historian from Guadeloupe, and you are in a minority of one on the issue. The phrase "free coloreds" is used 34 times in the article. It refers to a particular legal category in pre-Revolutionary France and should be used in its precise historical-legal context. As far as I know, it was not equivalent to "mixed-race". Here are some quotes: "The several hundred free coloreds who lived in Paris sought equality with whites. Their principal representatives were Vincent Ogé and Julien Raimond."

" Free colored persons did not have the right to the title “Monsieur” or “Madame”; they were excluded from certain positions (membership of the Conseil Supérieur, positions in the armed forces) and from certain occupations (lawyer, doctor, pharmacist)."

"The threat represented by the intensity of the revolt led to a rapprochement between the free coloreds and the white planters. On 11 September 1791 aristocrats from the west of Saint-Domingue reached an agreement with free coloreds at La Croix-des-Bouquets. Another convention was signed between free coloreds and the patriot petits blancs at Port-au-Prince on 23 October."

Regent does also use the terms "free persons of color", "free men of color" and "free women of color", although less frequently, usually when he is talking about individuals or sub-groups of the category rather than the legal category. The article already uses that term twice in the context where Regent uses that term. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Laurent Dubois also uses the term "free coloured" throughout his book A colony of citizens : revolution & slave emancipation in the French Caribbean, 1787-1804. However, he uses the French term gens de couleur more often. So "free coloured" is just a more concise way of saying "free people of colour". I think if the world's two leading authorities on the subject use "free coloured" in this way we should accept it. I would be happy to add a footnote explaining its use if that meets your concerns.

Here is Dubois' discussion: "The policing of this social structure [in the slave colonies] depended on a group that occupied a paradoxical place within it: the gens de couleur. This “intermediate” category between free whites and the enslaved was made up of those of African descent who were no longer enslaved. Many, but not all, in this group also had some European ancestry. Although their liberty guaranteed them many of the legal rights denied to the slaves, they were also subject to a battery of discriminatory legislation." Dubois (2004) ,P 54

Dubois later explains that some gens de couleur could be re-enslaved so they weren't all free. Free coloured is not a synonym for mixed-race because some had completely black ancestry and, as Regent points out, some people officially classified as White were of mixed ancestry. Nor is free-coloured a synonym for Creole. In fact, Creoles at the time were the White descendants of the original white settlers. (Josephine Bonaparte was a Creole and as far as I know no-one called her black or mixed-race.) Creole only took on the meaning of "mixed African heritage" in later popular usage. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I have added a link and footnote to explain the historical-legal use of the terms "persons of colour" and "free coloureds". Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)