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)

Robinvp11, Gwillhickers, 021120x That is not all that Schama says. On page 24 of the paperback edition, he states: "For France, without any question, the revolution began in America." On page 27 he states, "For many of Lafayette's contemporaries in the French nobility, America corresponded precisely to their ideal vision of a society happily separated from the cynicism and decrepitude of the Old World." Also, Chapter One (ii) Heroes for the Times certainly makes the case that George Washington was broadly and greatly admired in France. Referring to Washington, Schama writes, "the American general's reputation had far wider and more potent celebrity as the embodiment of a new kind of citizen-soldier: the reincarnation of Roman republican heroes."Truth is King^TALK 18:23, 17 October 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)

Robinvp11, Gwillhickers, 021120x To the extent that your argument depends on Schama, it is wrong. As noted above he is squarely in the camp of American inspiration.Truth is King^TALK 18:23, 17 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)

Feel free to discuss the viewpoint in the proper section of the article. As discussed above, it is inappropriate to include it in the lede. Acebulf (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As in the 18th century, the American war of independence sounded the tocsin [alarm] for the European middle class, so that in the 19th century, the American Civil War sounded it for the European working class.

The American people, who set the world an example in waging a revolutionary war against feudal slavery, now find themselves in the latest, capitalist stage of wage-slavery to a handful of multimillionaires

The American Revolution, which in its own time was the model of a revolutionary war, exerted an influence on the struggle of the European bourgeoisie against feudal absolutist regimes. Approximately 7,000 European volunteers fought in the ranks of the American army, including the Frenchmen the Marquis de Lafayette and H. Saint-Simon and the Pole T. Kosciuszko. During the Great French Revolution the insurgents made use of the organizational experience and revolutionary military tactics of the Americans. The victory of the North Americans in the American Revolution promoted the development of the liberation movement of the peoples of Latin America against Spanish domination. The revolution was hailed by the progressive people of many countries, including Russia, where A. N. Radishchev celebrated it in the ode “Liberty.”

Marx, Lenin, and other Soviet scholars cannot in any way, shape, or form be construed as "conservative reactionaries". 021120x (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Literally none of these are historians, and none of these claims assert that this is a major view of historians. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Marx, K. Kapital, vol. 1, ch. 25. In K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 23.

Engels, F. “Rabochee dvizhenie v Amerike.” Ibid., vol. 21.

Engels, F. F. A. Zorge, 31 dek. 1892. (Letter.) Ibid., vol. 38.

Engels, F. N. F. Daniel’sonu, 17 okt. 1893. (Letter.) Ibid., vol. 39.

Lenin, V. I. Novye dannye o zakonakh razvitiia kapitalizma v zemledelii, part 1: “Kapitalizm i zemledelie v Soedinennykh Shtatakh Ameriki.” ::Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 27.

Lenin, V. I. “Pis’mo k amerikanskim rabochim.” Ibid., vol. 37.

Lenin, V. I. “Agrarnaia programma sotsial-demokratii v pervoi russkoi revoliutsii 1905-1907 godov.” Ibid., vol. 16.

Ocherki novoi i noveishei istorii SShA, vol. 1. Moscow, 1960.

Foner, P. Istoriia rabochego dvizheniia v SShA, vol. 1. Moscow, 1949. (Translated from English.)

Foster, W. Negritianskii narod v istorii Ameriki. Moscow, 1955. (Translated from English.)

Fursenko, A. A. Amerikanskaia burzhuaznaia revoliutsiia XVIII v. Moscow-Leningrad, 1960.

Aptheker, H. Istoriia amerikanskogo naroda [vol. 2], Amerikanskaia revoliutsiia 1763-1783. Moscow, 1962. (Translated from English.)

The American Nation: A History, vols. 8-10. New York [1933].

Bemis, S. F. The Diplomacy of the American Revolution. New York, 1935.

Hardy, J. The First American Revolution. New York, 1937.

Morais, H. The Struggle for American Freedom. New York, 1944.

Jensen, M. The New Nation: A History of the United States During the Confederation, 1781-1789. New York, 1950.

Gipson, L. The Coming of the Revolution, 1763-1775. New York, 1954.

Then, what do these authors qualify as? 021120x (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Lead paragraph on American influences

I removed the second paragraph of the lead, which made fringe claims for the influence of Americans on the French Revolution. If present at all, this should be way down in the body somewhere. This is a highly Americano-centric claim, and by no stretch of the imagination belongs in the lead, nor probably in the body, either. The French Revolution is one of the most studied events in European, even World history, and every corner of it has been examined, in every generation, from every possible angle. If there were genuine, important influences by Americans, then there would be a whole corner of scholarship with multiple books with titles like, "American Influences on the French Revolution". But how many such books are there? Zero. If it were a very minor, but real, influence, then there would be books with entire chapters by that name. I'm not sure how many there are, but in a spot check of general histories of the French Revolution, I found none. I'd guess that less than one in twenty such histories contain such a chapter; maybe less than one in fifty. This makes this a "tiny minority" of views, and per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, it's questionable whether this content should appear in the article at all. Having it in the lead is WP:CHERRYPICKING and highly undue. I've removed it. Mathglot (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This perspective is highly Western Eurocentric. The majority of the sources provided were not written by American scholars. If the American Revolution catalyzed the start of the French Revolution, that should be mentioned. 021120x (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Robinvp11:, okay, understand your revert while that's going on. I'll leave it there for the time being. Oh, and I did find one book, regarding Tom Paine; there may be others, but still a tiny minority in the flood, or deluge, of books about this topic. Mathglot (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@021120x: Totally agree with you: if the American Revolution catalyzed the start of the French Revolution, that should be mentioned. The burden of proof is on those who believe that this is a significant view of historians, not on those that believe it isn't. Afaic, it's a fringe PoV, and shouldn't be mentioned at all. If yoiu can demonstrate that it's the view of a significant minority of historians, then it absolutely should be there. However, not before; and if it isn't, then it must be removed by WP:DUEWEIGHT. Mathglot (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The Lead adequately summarises the connections between European and American patriots and the current wording is as suggested by another (American) editor. Previous contributions made by 021120x (talk · contribs) refer to the bias of the 'Brit-clique', while removing edits made to American Exceptionalism on the grounds "This critique is based on European biases and is not something which originated in the US". Without further explanation. You can't have it both ways.

This issue has been referred to the ANI (dismissed) and is now the subject of a Dispute Resolution. Its not about the content, but because someone wants to win an argument. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Please desist from stalking and WP:HOUNDING. The statement in reference explained that the content in the article stemmed from European scholars, and the sentence in question was deleted by an anonymous user. It was reverted to restore the sentence, as the deletion added nothing to the page and removed pertinent information.

The dispute was moved to the DRN at the direction of the administrators in the ANI. Please do not make further comments on this page. 021120x (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, @Robinvp11: The dispute resolution has been closed on procedural grounds. I am in agreement with Mathglot that this should be relegated to the body of the text. I did find it to be a responsible compromise to the claims made earlier, but I believe that the problematic user is not going to be satisfied in any event, and as such, am willing to support moving it to the body of the text. What do you folks think? Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Acebulf:, I have only just gotten here, and am not aware of previous history. Sometimes that can be a hindrance, occasionally it can be helpful, in the sense of having fresh eyes on a situation. I don't know who the 'problematic user' is, and I don't need to know; it shouldn't affect one's view of content either way. I would merely urge the same forbearance on you; that is, if you believe that an 'unsatisfied problematic user' is the only reason, or the main reason to support moving the content to the body of the article (which is how I read your comment) rather than a pure, policy-based view, then I would urge you to reconsider. Stick to your guns, and propose whatever you think is right per policy; cantankerous users should not affect you either way. Yes, it will be more of a headache for you, because unsatisfied problematic user will argue with you; but it's worth it, for the integrity of the article. Even if I turn out to be that unsatisfied problematic user. And remember, illegitimi non carborundum. Thanks for your comment. Mathglot (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Passing comment. There are just too many accusations of bias, cherry-picking, fringe views, etc coming from both sides of the fence for me to further participate other than to make this statement: The French Revolution almost immediately followed the American Revolution. It would be a bit presumptuous to say the American Revolution was the major inspirational force behind the French Revolution. It would be equally presumptuous to say that it had no, or negligible, influence. Certainly the French had their own reasons for their revolution, and certainly they didn't exist in a box and never looked to the world around them for precedence or help, as did the Americans during their revolution. I've seen enough references to sources that indeed indicate that there is validity to both views, and that they can even overlap. It would be best to say, in effect, some sources say 'this', some sources say 'that' and let the readers decide what is "fringe", "bias", etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Gwillhickers: Like Mathglot posted above, if there are sources that indicate that this is a view agreed upon by historians (as in, a secondary source that states so, not opinions from individual historians), then please provide it so that we may put this debate to rest. Otherwise, it should not feature in the lede. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You're asking for a source that speaks for the majority of sources while you seem willing to ignore the views of individual historians -- rather than expressing both views with a neutral statement. If there are enough sources that express both views this can't be ignored, and making up your own demands on the fly isn't helping matters. There has to be a middle ground and there should be a compromise, as was done in the lede of the Causes of the French Revolution article. Good luck guys. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Gwillhickers:, a few things:

The French Revolution almost immediately followed the American Revolution. It would be a bit presumptuous to say the American Revolution was the major inspirational force behind the French Revolution. It would be equally presumptuous to say that it had no, or negligible, influence.

That's The latter statement is certainly a false statement, and is based on the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fact that The French Revolution followed the American Revolution, or that it followed the Sino-Burmese War could be totally fortuitous. You'd need to supply valid sources to make the case, for either one. It's not sufficient to say, that it's "presumputous" to say that it had negligible influence, so I reject that part of your comment entirely.

Secondly, you say,

If there are enough sources that express both views this can't be ignored..

but once again, that is completely false. It's certainly possible to ignore some sources. If you find ten sources supporting your proposition, and some else finds ten sources that support the opposite proposition but those ten are actually just the first ten of another eight hundred that support their position, but there are only another severn that support your position, then your position will not be mentioned in the article at all.

It seems from both of your comments, that you believe in compromise, and letting everyone have their say, and finding some intermediate position. Admiriable perhaps, in business, and other social situations, but entirely inappropriate here. At Wikipedia, the article must summarize the majority and significant minority viewpoints, and must ignore the views expressed by only a tiny minority. I don't see that that has been established yet.

Please don't misunderstand me: you might think I'm opposing you: I'm not. I'll switch my view 180 degrees, and come down hard on saying that the American revolution was the only or major cause of the French revolution, if the sources support that. I have no dog in this race, and care only that our policies of WP:NPOV and in particular WP:DUEWEIGHT are being followed. My impression is that they are not being followed; but I may be wrong. However what is incontrovertible, is that this is not about compromise, and it is not about airing opinions in the article "on both sides". What we must do, is find what the majority and significant minority views are on this topic. If the view that the American influence fits in either of those buckets, then it goes in the article body, if it doesn't, it goes nowhere. If on top of that, it is a major influence, it could be summarized in the lead, otherwise not. The task here, is to assess how significant this view is, compared to all the other views. My impression so far is, that it is a tiny minority view; however I'm perfectly willing to be proved wrong and shown otherwise. Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC) updated to fill out quotation; by Mathglot (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

— Upon review, no one wants the lede to say that the American Revolution was the "only" or the "major" cause of the French Revolution, so let's not create a straw man on behalf of other editors. You're saying that you support NPOV but at the same time you oppose representing both views with the claim that the majority of historians have only a one-sided view, that the American Revolution, had little to no influence. That you oppose this idea -- "If there are enough sources that express both views this can't be ignored" -- only serves to demonstrate that you seem to harbor a bias of your own, which was also revealed with your "Americano" accusation.
— Where have you substantiated that most historians believe that the American Revolution had little to no impact on the French Revolution? You presented a google list of sources with the claim that that none of them support the idea that the American revolution had little to no impact on the French Revolution, but take a real look at some of the books listed there. Thomas Paine and the French Revolution. Here's another list you might want to avoid consider.
— Was it also a coincidence that Thomas Jefferson was the one chosen to author the French Declaration of Independence? Sorry, but there are too many sources out there for any one editor around here to be making sweeping one-sided claims such as the ones you're making. Meanwhile you shouldn't be making controversial deletions in the lede in the middle of a debate. That too, also demonstrates an acute bias on your part. Sorry about the curt tone, but you seem to have no intention in reaching a balanced compromise that reflects 'any' influence the American Revolution had on the French Revolution, regardless of the sources support that premise, and regardless of the connections between the two revolutions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Please assume good faith. As I said before, I care not a jot what the lead or the body ends up saying, as long as it adheres to policy. It's fine with me, if American influence was the majority, or the entirety, of the causes; or conversely, if it was a significant minority view, or if it was not an influence at all. I really don't care. We merely need to find the views that correspond to the preponderance of reliable sources. The crucial things to understand here, in my view, are these:

• WP:Verifiability requires that all assertions in the article be verifiable with reliable sources. It's clear that you understand this perfectly well, as you have offered such sources. Bravo; we're in agreement.
• With respect to the verifiability of assertions, per WP:ONUS the burden of proof is on those wishing to advance a particular point of view. I think you understand that, but I'm not sure.
• WP:NPOV, and in particular, WP:DUEWEIGHT requires that the article appropriately represent all majority and significant minority views in the article, in proportion to their weight in independent, secondary, reliable sources. Based on what you've said above, it's not at all clear to me if you understand the import of WP:DUEWEIGHT or not, especially wrt this article.

This last point concerning DUE WEIGHT is particularly important in this case, because nobody is disputing that there are reliable sources on both sides, but that is not what this content dispute will turn on; it will turn on the proportion of sources that line up for each viewpoint, and that's clearly a WP:DUE issue. It is the proportion of all sources that support one viewpoint or another, that will decide the matter; not whether you can find one, or three, or ten good sources, and that therefore calls for "compromise"; no, if that is how it ends up, that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. WP:DUE governs here.

The rest of what you say above, repeatedly, seems to me not to be about improving the article at all, but rather about my supposed bias, my supposed bad faith, and my supposed accusations; These comments are not an appropriate topic for an article talk page, so I'm not going to respond to them. Please don't repeat any of that here; instead, stick to discussion of how to improve the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and in particular, with respect to this:

It would be best to say, in effect, some sources say 'this', some sources say 'that' and let the readers decide what is "fringe", "bias", etc.

To the extent that 'this' and 'that' are roughly 50-50 opinions among historians, I agree with the first part of what you said. However, we can't expect readers do the research that encyclopedia editors are called upon to do. One of our main charters is to do that work for them; we don't draw any opinions ourselves, but we do summarize what's out there in due proportion to their preponderance in the literature. If it's ten to one in favor of one view, we don't say, "some sources say 'this' and some sources say 'that'," that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Instead, we say, "the great majority of historians have taken 'this view'  but there are a few who espouse 'that view' ". And we certainly do not include fringe viewpoints and "let the reader decide"; that is contrary to neutrality policy. Again, it's all about WP:DUEWEIGHT, which is key here. Mathglot (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

No one has said or is saying that the French Revolution was caused by the American Revolution. This is a straw man argument. The discussion is that the French drew inspiration and influence from the Americans, which is indisputable, and warrants inclusion.

Please do not make further comments. This matter is being reviewed by the DRN. They will not look over it if there is an active discussion. 021120x (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

(1) Before anyone comments further, can I suggest reading what the Lead actually says, then arguing about what it should say.

(2) It is stated above this is simply about "the French drew inspiration and influence from the Americans, which is indisputable, and warrants inclusion." If that is so, I invite everyone to look at the version I produced on 13 September, amended following input on 8 October; see if you can figure out why it was felt necessary to raise first an ANI, then a DRN. Given the speed with which they were resolved, I'm not the only one.

(3) That's not to say I don't have a good idea. You cannot 'bluff' on Wikipedia; everything you write (even amended) can be viewed by anyone. If you claim your wording comes from another editor, and is the result of 'editorial consensus', its easy to check. If you accuse others of lacking neutrality, you better make sure your personal TP isn't littered with interactions proving the opposite, and your personal edit history doesn't contain multiple references to 'British nationalist bias' or Europeans in general lacking insight on American affairs. As a Brit who lived in the US for 12 years and whose kids still do, I'll leave you to imagine how ironic it is to hear that claim.

(4) The good thing about Wikipedia is its full of intelligent people, with different perspectives, from whom you can learn. If you want; I found the article by Annie Jourdan really interesting, and I've learned something. If all you've taken away is to confirm how right you were all along, then hurrah for you I guess, but what a sterile world that must be.

(5) The bad thing about Wikipedia is its full of intelligent people; you might be the intellectual giant of Podunkville, LA, or Greater Dribble, Nowhereshire, able to stun others into submission by your ability to seamlessly switch between 'influence', 'inspire' and 'catalyse'. In the world of Wikipedia, people know what 'ad hominem' means, and if you supply references, there's a good chance someone else will read it rather than just being awed by your ability to dig it out.

(6) On a positive note, I've taken a look at the article in general and its a mess - multiple repetition of the same detail, confusing timelines etc. I'm doing some work on it, (constructive) suggestions welcome. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Neither the ANI nor the DRN are resolved. Endeavor to cooperate with the moderators, and do not make further comments. Additionally, cease the character assassination. 021120x (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

editbreak

• Mathglot, it would be nice if you didn't recite policy and guidelines as if they automatically support your opinions. You have not made the case that any American influence on the French Revolution is a "fringe" theory. A fringe theory, or view, is something that is quite rare and highly unusual or unlikely, covered by no more than one or two sources out of dozens, and that is far from the case here. Also, we don't count up the sources on both sides of the fence to make a determination as to the weight of an issue. If opinion 'A' has 20 sources supporting it and opinion 'B' has 10 sources supporting, it doesn't 'automatically' mean that opinion 'A' has twice the weight, so it would be best if you didn't try to advance your opinion with simple addition. As you admit, there are sources that support both views, and the views do not necessarily oppose each other but can overlap. Again, there are enough sources out there that can allow us to make a neutral and objective statement as we currently have in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers:, no one is under any obligation to "[make] the case that any American influence on the French Revolution is a 'fringe' theory". It simply is not necessary: per WP:BURDEN the onus is on those wishing to include material, not on those removing it. Also, your understanding of what a fringe theory is in the context of Wikipedia, is mistaken. (In particular, "FRINGE" is not an assessment of argument quality, or of correctness of belief; it could be that the FRINGE belief is the accurate one, and the majority view is false.) See WP:FRINGE.

Your comment about opinions 'A' and 'B' is definitely on point here; but in fact, contrary to your assertion, it does mean that opinion 'A' has twice the weight as 'B'; in fact, it's crucial. The trick is, to find the sources in an impartial manner, so they can be properly compared. That is more art than science, and reasonable people may disagree on what the data shows, but at least everyone should agree that WP:DUEWEIGHT is the crucial factor in determining what is, or isn't, majority opinion, minority opinion, or fringe, and the starting point for any investigation of it. If we don't start from basic policy, then it's just chaos.

You come back again and again to the view that if we find, ten, or a dozen sources on each side of the argument, that is sufficient to add both to the lead. But that is simply a mistaken view that is not supported by policy; that's just not how it's done at Wikipedia. Doing it that way would leave the article in a misleading state of WP:FALSEBALANCE. I've explained this about as much as I feel able to, and it feels like I'm not making myself understood. Perhaps I haven't been clear, and someone else can give it a try. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I found this ironic:

Also, we don't count up the sources on both sides of the fence to make a determination as to the weight of an issue.

Yeah; that's pretty much exactly what we do. See WP:DUEWEIGHT. Mathglot (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Robotic nonsense. What would you do if there were 10 sources supporting view 'A' and 8 sources supporting view 'B'. Make the claim that view 'A' has 20% more weight than view 'B'?  I think we've heard enough about this approach. Also, your recital about Falsebalance functions as a two way street. Coming up with a measure of sources that are greater than the other could just as well give us a false balance. You still haven't made the case that there is any "fringe" theory or view being advanced here, and your attempt to count (cherrypick?) the sources to establish this doesn't wash when you consider we are talking about something that is not tangible and wholly subjective. i.e.Influence. In such a case we look to the facts, and there are more than enough facts to make the simple deduction that the American Revolution, and its victory over Britain, France's arch enemy, gave a measure of influence to the impetus behind the French Revolution. To claim each revolution existed in a vacuum would be a little ridiculous. Meanwhile you have yet to establish that any view is "fringe" and your math approach isn't at all convincing to anyone who has their eyes on the facts and all the varied sources out there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

We are talking about something that is tangible, i.e., sources. The "math approach", as you call it, isn't mine at all; it's Wikipedia policy. Mathglot (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we take a step back and try to include fewer accusatory statements? On a second note, as stated above, unless we have reliable commentary on what historians actually believe, then guidelines would favor it being left out entirely. Citing WP:UNDUE is correct here. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no conceivable way that an individual holding a neutral and objective viewpoint can question whether or not reliable commentary exists at this point in the discussion, even without knowledge of what has already been prematurely subtracted from the page. 021120x (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, there is nothing in WP:DUE that indicates the idea that if you have a measure of sources higher than opposing sources that this automatically renders the opposing view as fringe or highly unlikely. A fringe theory or view is only deemed as such when there are little to no sources to support that view. You have yet to even come close to proving any such claim. There are enough well sourced facts that support the idea that the American Revolution had a fair measure of influence on the impetus to bring the French Revolution about. Thomas Jefferson wrote the French Declaration of independence. Benjamin Franklin, US Minister to France, a political philosopher and his close friend comte de Mirabeau, a French revolutionary writer, constantly shared their ideas of revolution. Lafayette, when he returned to France after the American Revolutionary War, fully supported the prospect of democracy and a French revolution, and along with Jefferson, worked with Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès when they drafted the French Declaration of the Rights of Man -- and there are plenty of sources that cover these things. This is not a contest about who has the largest stack of books, and again, you have yet to prove you have. In such cases we look to the established facts to see if they are supported by the sources. You need to put your unsupported math claim aside and start considering the actual history involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the idea that the American revolution influenced the French revolution is fringe, but including it so prominently does seriously violate WP:WEIGHT, in my opinion. From those who want to include it so prominently, I would like to see a good analysis of sources that supports giving it this much weight. For example, can we look at the weight given to this aspect of the French revolution by a few widely used reference works? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:, I haven't made up my mind on the question of whether it is or isn't fringe, and we'll need a whole lot more data than we have now in order to decide that question. The section below this one on tertiary sources is a start in gathering that data. So far, we have three highly reliable, tertiary sources, and there's no indication so far of the American Revolution's being considered any kind of influence. The only connection, which pretty much everybody mentions, is that the choice of the French to intervene in the American Revolutionary War bankrupted the French treasury, and lack of funds is usually listed as one of the causes on all the lists I've seen so far as possible causes of the French Revoltion. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Putting the influence of the American revolution in the 2nd paragraph of the lede is giving that influence way too much prominence (as of my writing, the 2nd paragraph is all about this relationship). If the relationship between the two revolutions is discussed, it should be somewhere in the body, probably not in the lede, and certainly not in the 2nd paragraph of the lede. For comparison, the French version of the article does not even mention the influence of the American revolution at all (except to mention France's war debt). -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Currently there is only one brief statement in the lede intimating the idea of influence, and it's not committed to American influence. i.e." a global community of European and American 'patriots', who shared ideas and political principles, contacts accelerated by the American Revolution". This doesn't come off as anything too over stated. Given that the French Declaration of the Rights of Man was authored by some of the major American forefathers, and since the American Revolution was fresh in the minds of the western world, and then some, opening the door, wide open, to the idea of throwing off ruling monarchies, I'm not really seeing anything that comes off over-stated. However, we can transpose the paragraph involved with the one beneath it, as it seems to make for a better narrative flow anyway. As of this writing, the paragraph in question is now the third paragraph in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Here is a passage, taken from one of our sources, that should help in the understanding in how the American and French revolutions had more than just a passing relationship. For whatever it's worth, this is not an American source.
  "From the beginning of the war, Franklin enjoyed great popularity as the paragon of modern virtue; for instance, liberal aristocrats commissioned a sculpted bust of him to add to their collection of great men. Franklin and his admirers discussed the American Revolution and its democratic ambitions; indeed, American state constitutions had been translated and were circulating through salons and the press six years before the French Revolution. French ministers' attempts at reform in the 1770s and 1780s further encouraged these discussions." <Jourdan, 2007 > -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Lafayette's writings on the American Revolution also had a measure of influence in France during the years before the French Revolution. Of the American Revolution he wrote :
  "May this Revolution serve as a lesson to oppressors and an example to the oppressed." These words were reprinted in almost every French journal at that time.<Carlyle, 1902>, pp. 172 We can only speculate as to 'how much' writings like this impacted the French revolutionary mindset, but when we consider that Europe had their eyes on America during its revolution, especially France, its primary ally, it's not difficult to see that American Revolutionary thinking helped to fan the fires of the French Revolution.  Author Thomas Carlyle is also not an American source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Assessment of views on American influence based on tertiary sources

As the French Revolution is widely covered, there is no benefit to the discussion in listing what individual authors have to say. In an attempt to break this logjam, what we need, is some solid data about what the majority/minority/tiny minority views are, in order to make any progress. Bearing in mind that per WP:BURDEN the task of proving sufficient support for the American-influence theory lies squarely on those who wish to include it, so, in that sense, those *not* wishing to include it don't need to prove anything at all (contrary to some oft-repeated, non policy-based insistence above that they do), I think that this is nevertheless not an intractable problem, so I'll go ahead and give it a shot.

Both Acebulf and User:Thucydides411 are on the right track here, imho, as the only way to establish the proper treatment of American influence in the article. As Acebulf said, "unless we have reliable commentary on what historians actually believe then guidelines would favor it being left out entirely, and Thucydides411 offered another approach, mentioning that that French article doesn't mention it at all, other than regarding the war debt.

So, I'd like to propose an approach that might shed some light on the question of what the majority/minority views are; namely, the use of tertiary sources. Because the French Revolution is one of the most studied topics in history, it is more difficult to assess the numbers, and thus the weight they represent, by going straight to the secondary sources; it's an embarrassment of riches, and a lot to wade through. (There are ways, however; more on that later, if this approach is inconclusive.) Tertiary sources are "publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources." Besides encyclopedias, that could include good college textbook introductions, historical dictionaries, and similar sources. Encyclopedias are the classic tertiary source. Historiographical reviews or survey articles that look at the treatment of the aggreagate of historians on the topic, would be another tertiary source. A good tertiary source should give us some idea of the general view of historians on this topic, both based on what they say about American influence, and also by what they don't say. If we have a dozen reliable tertiary sources, the "average" will give us an excellent view of the views of serious historians on this topic.

I hope you will help out, by adding items to the "Survey" section below. If you are willing to participate in this approach, and in order to keep things on track, and comprehensible, I'd like to propose a methodology to go along with it. The goal here is to select and summarize one encyclopedia article on the topic, and add your report to the bullet list. So please select one tertiary source, read it through, and make a brief synopsis of it, including some statistics on whether they talk about American influence, and to what extent. I'll include two subsection headers below: "Survey" and "Discussion". It's not by accident that this parallels an oft-used Rfc approach, but this is not an Rfc. (If this approach goes nowhere, we might need an Rfc, later.) In the "Survey" section, please add a bullet item containing the name of your encyclopedia (or other tertiary source), a citation for it, and then not more than a couples of sentences about what you found. Ideally, your survey summary should betray no clue where you stand on this issue; just a dispassionate assessment of what this one source says about it. Please don't "reply" or add other commentary following someone else's tertiary bullet synopsis; let's keep the "Survey" section lean and mean, and use the "Discussion" section for commentary. Also use the "Discussion" section, if you feel that a sentence or two just isn't enough to fully describe what your source says about this. (Or, use a long |quote= param in the {{citation}}.) The goal is to have a lean "Survey" section that has a good number of tertiary sources, each in one bullet item, which is brief, and no discussion there, so you can run down the whole bullet list rapidly and compare. Longer comments and responses to other users should go in the "Discussion" section.

I'm not opposed to changing the methodology if someone has a way to improve it, but can we at least get started with it this way? This Talk page has been going around in circles with no real progress in finding consensus, afaict, and I think this may get us somewhere. I'll start, with one bullet item for the "Columbia Encyclopedia". Please add more! After we have a bunch of them (I'm hoping for a dozen) we can step back, and see where we are with this. Please see guideline at WP:TERTIARY for what sources are applicable here. Ready, steady, Go! Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey of 3ary sources

Here's a model tertiary source synopsis bullet item you can copy-paste and use if you want.

Copy this: * '''Encylopedia Galactica'''{{snd}}My summary of what this encyclopedia has to say about American influence on the French Revolution. List of main causes listed in this article: 1. Foo; 2. Bar; 3. Baz; 4. Quux. The number of times "American influence" (or revolution, or cause, etc.) mentioned in this article is: 99. The most typical is this quote: "{{xt|The American Revolution caused the galaxy to rally to the Federation.}}" (Any other helpful remarks about the source, like # volumes or pages, goes here.)<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia Galactica |editor-last1= |editor-first1= |title=French Revolution |author1=Article author |url= |year= |publisher= |edition= |volume= |isbn= |oclc= |pages= |access-date= |quote= }}</ref> ~~~~ To generate this: Encylopedia Galactica – My summary of what this encyclopedia has to say about American influence on the French Revolution. List of main causes of the F.R. listed in this article, are: 1. Foo; 2. Bar; 3. Baz; 4. Quux. The number of times "American influence" (or revolution, or cause, etc.) mentioned in this article is: 99. The most typical is this quote: "The American Revolution caused the galaxy to rally to the Federation." (Any other helpful remarks about the source, like # volumes or pages, goes here.) /Your user-sig/

• Columbia Encyclopedia – No mention of American influence. Three causes mentioned in lead: 1. intellectual movement based on Enlightenment; 2. rebellion of lower classes; 3. assertion of the new capitalist bourgeoisie against the ancien regime's restrictive social and economic system. Lower down, #4 lists the "immediate cause". Quote: "The immediate cause is without doubt the bankrupt state of the public treasury." The words "American Revolution" mentioned once, in the context of France's intervention having "resulted in a gigantic public debt." (One-volume 'pedia, 950pp; FrRev article is about 2/3 of a page: 93 lines, ~814 words). Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia – Nothing about American influence, other than war debt. Lists 3 causes: 1. underfed population; 2. loss of support for feudal system,; 3. financial crisis. "American influence" not mentioned in this article; (one mention of the financial burden from the Revolutionary War). Closest to assigning influence, is this: "...and a fiscal crisis worsened by participation in the American Revolution." (1792 pp. in one vol.; article is 37 lines, ~330 words) Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia Britannica – nothing about Am. influence (other than the debt). Lists six causes in the body of the article: 1. resentment among the bourgeoisie about powerlessness; 2. peasant resentment of feudal system; 3. widespread influence of philosophers arguing for social reform; 4. govt. bankruptcy due to participation in Am. Rev.; 5. crop failures compounding economic problems; 6. monarchy lost cred; couldn't adapt to societal changes. (There is also a separate list of causes in the right sidebar, essentially the same, but ordered and worded differently.) The number of times "American influence" (or revolution, or cause, etc.) mentioned in this article is: 4. The most typical is this quote: "(4) French participation in the American Revolution had driven the government to the brink of bankruptcy." (Online encyclopedia; 86 paragraphs, 1,922 words) Mathglot (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Salem Press Encyclopedia – No mention of American influence. List of main causes listed in this article: 1. socioeconomic disparities; 2. resentment of privileges enjoyed by elite classes; 3. Enlightenment principles fueling opposition to feudal inequities. The number of times "America" mentioned: once: in a quote about heavy expenditures "in the Seven Years’ War and... the American Revolution left the government in financial peril, leading to higher taxes and reduced benefits for citizens." (Online resource via EBSCO with public library login; 60 paragraphs, 2,205 words.) Mathglot (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Encyclopédie Larousse – No mention of the influence of the American revolution. Main causes (going by the subsection headings): 1. Poverty of the people, 2. The economic crisis, 3. Urban and Rural Revolts, 4. The Bourgeoisie (richer and more industrious than the nobility, but shut out of high stations in society; influence of the philosophes on the bourgeoisie; the monarchy incapable of reform), 5. The aristocracy (still rich, but menaced by possible loss of wealth; the "nobility of the robe" opposed to the king but still conservative), 6. Feudalism (serfdom). Thucydides411 (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia of Modern Europe – Nothing about American Revolution influence (other than debt). Main causes (historians agree on #1, disagree on others): 1. financial crisis caused by participation in American War; 2. "long-term pressures of royal state-making"; 3. challenge to the nobility from bourgeoisie and peasants; 4. maybe "only short-term and therefore relatively unimportant causes"; 5. interrelated economic, social, and cultural changes undermining the bases of social and political authority. The number of times "American influence" (or revolutionary war, etc) mentioned in this article (other than war debt) is: 0. The most typical is this quote: "Historians agree that it was this financial crisis that erected the stage on which the French Revolution of 1789 was enacted. They do not agree, however, on whether this was only the immediate cause of a much longer and deeper crisis within French society." (139 paragraphs, 7,718 words; causes are worded somewhat vaguely and hard to summarize; hence double quotes in the numbered list) Mathglot (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• New Catholic Encyclopedia – Nothing about Am. influence. This entry couches causes (unsurprisingly) in terms of religious history and philosophy. List of main causes: (quotes sources from the 18th to 20th c.): 1. a death struggle between Christianity and a diabolical philosophy (1796); 2. a trial permitted by Providence to revivify Catholicism (1796); 3. the fruit of a plot hatched by philosophers, freemasons, and fanatics to destroy the Church (1797); 4. an essentially religious conflict whose goal was the triumph of the spirit of enquiry and of liberty (1865); 5. financial, national security; and not a premeditated war against the Church (20th c.). The number of times "American influence" (or revolution, or cause, etc.) mentioned in this article is: 1: ("the Declaration of the Rights of Man [was] inspired by the American Declaration of Independence."). A typical quote is the intro: "The French Revolution (1789–99) was not merely a violent and decisive overthrow of the political and social structures of the French kingdom; it was also a spiritual and religious drama." (90 paragraphs 6,394 words) Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Gran enciclopèdia catalana – No mention of American influence. Main causes listed in this article: 1. failure of the Ancien Regime to adapt to new economic and social realities; 2. exclusion of the bourgeoisie from political power; 3. effects of the economic crisis on the peasantry; 4. ideals of progress and happiness put forth by Enlightenment philosophy. The number of times "American influence" (or revolution, or cause, etc.) mentioned in this article is: 0. (in Catalan; 14 paragraphs, 1511 words) Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

reference mark1

• I already cited Bolshaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya 3rd Ed. above. This is from its entry on the American Revolution:  – The American Revolution, which in its own time was the model of a revolutionary war, exerted an influence on the struggle of the European bourgeoisie against feudal absolutist regimes. Approximately 7,000 European volunteers fought in the ranks of the American army, including the Frenchmen the Marquis de Lafayette and H. Saint-Simon and the Pole T. Kosciuszko. During the Great French Revolution the insurgents made use of the organizational experience and revolutionary military tactics of the Americans. The victory of the North Americans in the American Revolution promoted the development of the liberation movement of the peoples of Latin America against Spanish domination. The revolution was hailed by the progressive people of many countries, including Russia, where A. N. Radishchev celebrated it in the ode “Liberty.”

Will go back for entry on French Revolution. 021120x (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Within the constraints of WP:TERTIARY, please choose your sources as randomly as possible. Any reputable encyclopedia should be fine. I used the Columbia, because it was sitting on my bookshelf, and there was no way I could know what it said about the French Revolution ahead of time; I didn't pick it because it agreed (or disagreed) with any opinion I might have. Regarding the Columbia Enc., this is a 1980 paperback, 1-volume, 950-page concise encyclopedia. I don't think that's "too old" for something that happened in 1789, but if someone has a more recent edition, by all means add it.

Now, it's your turn. Please add a bullet item above, with a synopsis of your encyclopedia selection. Important: secondary sources are endless, not appropriate here, and may derail the discussion. Please stick to the WP:TERTIARY sources. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Added two more; please add what you can. Mathglot (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Added Salem Encyclopedia. I had not heard of this before, but it was the first one that came up when I searched for "Encyclopedias" in the "eLibrary" section of my public library. Salem is directed mostly at high school and university students. It came up via EBSCOhost; this is a free resource, but requires registration through any participating public library. Mathglot (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I think this is the right way to address the question. Thank you for putting together these sources. If I can figure out what the correct tertiary reference works are in French, I will see what they say about the relationship with the American revolution. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added the Encyclopédie Larousse. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:, Thanks. If you know of tertiary sources in other west European languages, please point me to them, as I might be able to help. Encyclopedias in French and English are not the only ones with articles about this. Mathglot (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Added GEC, the standard reference in Catalan. This is from the online edition; the multi-volume bound version may be longer, but I don't have access to it now. Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Click '[show]' to display references for this discussion.

Cherry picking sources

Wikipedia articles constantly make references to sources other than tertiary sources. This is obviously an attempt to cherry pick sources, in this case, a few selected encyclopedias, that only give outline coverage to the events of the war with nothing more than generic coverage to the causes and ideas that give rise to the French Revolution. As outlined, there are more than enough facts to support the idea that the American Revolution, fought by France alongside the Americas, to support the idea that the American Revolution fed right into the French Revolution. Obviously the French had their own reasons for a revolution, and it's very curious that it involved a measure of class warfare, as occurred before and during the American Revolution. To ignore the idea that these two parallel advents had no influence in the thinking behind the French Revolution is naive, to say the least. There are too many facts, supported by many sources, to be ignored here, and we should not limit our sources to a few select encyclopedias. That these encyclopedias don't even mention Jefferson, who authored the French Declaration, or Lafayette, whose writings appeared in French journals in the years leading up to the war, or Franklin, who worked along side French revolutionary writers, etc, clearly indicates that these are simply overly simplistic accounts that leave much to be desired. We can not ignore all the scholarly sources that lend us in depth coverage as to the causes of the French Revolution. This seems like an underhand attempt to push a POV that attempts to sweep many facts under the rug and is obviously a clumsy attempt at censorship. This article employs dozens of secondary and scholarly sources. What is the plan now -- to ignore the lot of them? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Mathglot is trying to cherry-pick sources. The problem is that there are so many secondary sources on the French Revolution (it may well be the most written-about event in history) that there will be multiple sources that cover virtually every aspect of the revolution, no matter how minor. That makes assigning weight difficult, because an argument can be made that every aspect of the revolution is important. I think that in order to make progress on determining what to include in the lede, looking at a range of tertiary sources is a good idea, because they have already done the work of condensing the secondary literature into a short summary.

I just went to the first respectable-looking online French encyclopedia I could find (from a publisher I know: Larousse), and skimmed through its section on the causes of the revolution: [1]. It does not mention the American Revolution as a cause. I know from my outside reading that the American Revolution played some role in influencing the French Revolution, but it's not a large enough role that it is mentioned by the Encyclopédie Larousse. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

About Jefferson and Lafayette, these are figures who were certainly involved in the French Revolution, but they are far better remembered in the United States than in France. Compared to numerous other participants in the French Revolution, Jefferson and Lafayette are quite minor figures. They're major figures in the American Revolution who each played a minor part in the French Revolution. The Larousse article on the French Revolution (about 15,000 words long) does not mention Jefferson, though it does discuss Lafayette. It does mention (not in the "Origins and Causes" section) that the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was influenced by the Declaration of Independence, but that's the closest that it gets to discussing the influence of the American Revolution on the French Revolution. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are very many secondary sources, and they all can't be pointing in 100 different directions in terms of the established facts and American involvement during the French Revolution. Clearly, the Americans, like Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, etc, though "better remembered" in America, were very involved with affairs in the years leading up to the French Revolution, and to outright ignore it all, and to go so far as to demand what sources we can and can't refer to, would amount to censorship. No one is asking that we commit an entire section, or several paragraphs, covering these events, but on the other hand, we should not overall be ignoring these things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not calling for ignoring the influence of Americans on the French Revolution. I'm just saying that the lede should prioritize the most important issues in the Revolution. Looking at the tertiary sources, I don't think the influence of the American Revolution is important enough to be included in the lede, but it probably could be included somewhere in the body of the article. By the way, about the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen: I don't think it's accurate to say that Jefferson authored the French Declaration. The French Wikipedia article lists Champion de Cicé, Mirabeau and Mounier as the primary authors, though the English Wikipedia article gives a very different list of authors, including Lafayette, which I think again reflects the interest of Americans in Lafayette. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Insert : Have to disagree on that note. We have a basic statement, not exclusive to American influence, now down in the third paragraph of the lede. France came away from the American Revolutionary War, which they helped to win, fully inspired by the idea of revolution, which was soon to follow in France, with the help and inspiration of notable figures from the American Revolution. Out of dozens of statements in the lede, this idea deserves a least one mention in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Gwillhickers, I am not cherry-picking sources, these are well-known, reputable sources (with the possible exception of Salem, which is new to me, but was the first shown to me by my library online section when I searched, but seems okay). I think you may misunderstand the intent of the previous section. It is not to advocate for including tertiary sources to the article. Note that I'm not advocating against it, either; but tertiary sources are generally not so useful in the body of an article, as they provide only a broad-brush sketch of a topic, without getting into an inordinate amount of detail. But that is not the reason for that section. That section is there to try to make some progress in the discussions about the importance of American influence as one of the causes of the French revolution. In fact, one of the most useful aspects of encyclopedias and other tertiary sources for article development at Wikipedia, is in the way they can help settle questions of WP:DUE WEIGHT, as the section on tertiary sources itself explains.

Since the question of how much weight to assign to American influence seems to be the central sticking point on this Talk page, an appeal to tertiary sources and what they have to say on the question, may be the ideal way to try to settle the DUE WEIGHT question.

You make a lot of claims to support your view including expressions like "obviously", or "too many facts, supported by many sources, to be ignored", without actually supporting it with sources. On the other hand, you make statements attacking, minimizing, or mocking the opposing view, or the editors who make them, like these:

• "To ignore the idea that these two parallel advents had no influence in the thinking behind the French Revolution is naive"
• "This seems like an underhand attempt to push a POV that attempts to sweep many facts under the rug...
• "...is obviously a clumsy attempt at censorship"

without any attempt at supporting those, either. As far as the last two bullets above, please knock it off and assume good faith.

Look, I'm not saying you're wrong about the extent of American influence. What I'm saying is, let's do some research, and see if you are right about that or not. The problem is, there are thousands and thousands of books on the topic, and you can probably find some that agree with you. So going to the secondary sources, and finding the ones that agree with you, is not the way to settle this question. In developing an article at Wikipedia, that's simply not how it's done, and is against policy. What we must do, is find out the majority opinion of historians on the topic (and also the significant minority views). Doing a survey of numerous tertiary sources is the ideal way to do this. If you have access to tertiary sources, please contribute to the section above.

Finally, I find the title that you chose for this section, ironic in the extreme. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The section title is appropriate. You give us four encyclopedias, claim that they don't mention anything about American influence and then maintain, as your doing again now, that these are the sources we should be using. In any event, it was encouraging to hear you say, at least, that I'm not wrong about the extent of American influence. All I ask is that we give brief commentary about these things in the narrative, where appropriate, per sources. In the American Revolutionary War article, we make it clear that France played an important role in that war -- it would be nice if we saw the same spirit of scholarship exercised here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: The section title is not appropriate. Cherry-picking means, searching out a whole bunch of encyclopedias, rejecting all the ones that disagree with me, and only talking about the ones that agree with me. That's not what I did. I'm including every encyclopedia I can find, and am including *all* of them, no matter what they say, agree with me or not.

I'm sorry to stomp on your sense of being encouraged, but I did not say you are right about the extent of American influence. What I meant was by saying "you're not wrong" is that I am not biased against your point of view, but you have to prove it. Everything I've seen so far, tends to make me think you are wrong about it, but that remains to be seen. I really wish you would help, by finding additional encyclopedias (or other tertiary sources) and add to this investigation. The section title is ironic, because all indications are that it's not me, who's doing the WP:CHERRYPICKING to support their view. You said:

All I ask is that we give brief commentary about these things in the narrative, where appropriate, per sources.

I understand exactly what you want, and from your point of view, this seems reasonable; after all, how could anyone possibly disagree with the view of American influence on the French Revolution, which does, indeed, have some support in reliable sources? The problem is not that you can't find sources for this; I freely grant that you can. The problem is one which I am now at a complete loss to explain to you as I've tried so many times, and failed; namely, that per WP:DUE WEIGHT you cannot include even a brief commentary about anything that represents only a tiny minority of views. Put another way: yes, there are reliable sources for your view; and no, you cannot include them, unless they pass the bar required by policy.

The question before us, then, is this: "does that view represent only a tiny minority, or is it more than that?" That is the whole point of the exercise in the previous section above; to settle that question. Please help out with your contribution(s) there.

By the way, whether France had an important role in the American Revolutionary War or not (they did, of course) has absolutely nothing to do with the question before us here, and it's irrelevant to even mention it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have not established a "tiny minority view". There are just too many facts involved for the sources to be ignoring them. Along with numerous examples outlined, from French and other non American sources, this has been explained for you already. Btw, mention of France's involvement in the ARW article was in reference to the spirit of scholarship here, which apparently went right over your head, as you continue to drag the discussion down to a contentious level with your cherry picking, empty claims about a "minority view" and your misrepresentation of my attempts at conciliation. At this point it seems rather clear you have no intention of arriving at any sort of compromise. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Info taken from our sources

Listed below are a couple of passages take from François-Alphonse Aulardp's work, a French author, used in the Bibliography of this article.

• Paine, Thomas, who through his influence on the American Revolution exerted a considerable influence on the genius of the French Revolution. <François-Alphonse Aulardp, 1910, p. 67>

• The bold phrases of Thomas Paine's republican phamphlet, Common Sense, resounded throughout France. Franklin, in a letter, dated May, 1777, speaks of the passionate interest with which American affairs are followed in France. <François-Alphonse Aulardp, 1910, p. 113>

Our bibliography is filled with scholarly sources and I'll continue to make reference to them as we go along. There is just too much involvement with the Americas during the French Revolution for us to be ignoring.

• Jefferson followed the course of the [French] Revolution. He suggested and submitted a proposed charter to Lafayette and a desirable course of procedure for the Assembly of Notables. Lafayette arranged for a meeting of the leaders... <Paxton, 1988, p. 109>

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel like every attempt to impress upon you the meaning and importance of WP:DUEWEIGHT in deciding this question, falls on deaf ears. Let's just keep going on the evaluation based on tertiary sources, and see where that takes us, shall we? A dozen encyclopedias or other tertiary sources would be good. Mathglot (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Several significant involvements of the Americans have been outlined now, taken from non American sources, one of them a French source, and you seek to ignore it all, for reasons I don't quite understand. Your words about Due Weight are attempting to cancel out any influence that the American Revolutionary War, fought by France also, had on the French Revolution. As such it's becoming more difficult to assume good faith at this point as you seek to have us look no further than the few encyclopedias you've selected and seem perfectly willing to ignore all the facts that can be found in the very Bibliography of this article, while compromising and modest approaches have been offered. This is troubling. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel like we are going around in circles. To your points:

• I do not seek to ignore your sources that represent significant viewpoints. So far, you haven't demonstrated they are significant.
• WP:DUEWEIGHT is Wikipedia policy; pointing it out, is not an attempt to "cancel out" anything.
• Please assume good faith, as WP:CIVIL requires.
• I never said you should look no further than the encyclopedias, that is false. What I said was, a survey of tertiary sources is a good way to resolve issues around due weight of certain viewpoints. And it is; it says so, right in the guideline.
• I have not "selected a few encyclopedias"; I am including every one I can find. The fact that you accuse anyone of cherry-picking is high irony. Please point out any other encyclopedia of your choice, and I will include it if I can access it. But why wait for me? Pick your own encyclopedia, or ten of them; and include those.
• I am not ignoring any facts in the Bibliography of this article. I'm saying you have to not pick the ones that agrees with your chosen narrative, but take a broader view, and use sources that are typical of the majority and minority viewpoints.

This isn't about "winning" or "losing" an argument. I've already told you (twice? three times?) that I don't care how this comes out; if the American Revolution was an influence on the French Revolution, then great! We can write a whole, long, section about it. But if it's only the view of a tiny minority of historians on the topic, then it must be excluded from the article; that's policy. The more you help in the section above, the faster we will figure out which it is. I can't keep up this repetitive discussion; it's going in circles, and not tending towards a resolution. The section above this one, may be different. Let's hope. Mathglot (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

As was said, I don't wish to commit an entire section, or several paragraphs, covering American influence in the years leading up to the French Revolution. Your contention that only a "tiny minority of historians" cover American involvement remains far from substantiated and tells us you feel that the 'majority' of scholars are rather ignorant or complacent about the significant facts that have been outlined for you, several put forth by French and non American sources. And no, I am not cherry picking and have not asserted that we only consult a narrow range of sources – I have every intention of continuing to explore the sources far and wide, as I have been doing, with success. You assert that, "I never said you should look no further than the encyclopedias, that is false", but you also said, "Please stick to the WP:TERTIARY sources."  Okay, which is it??  There is a simple "resolution": Prove that American influence is only represented by a "tiny minority" of scholars, in spite of the facts outlined, above, and below, and when you come to terms with the reality that isn't going to occur, please help us out with a reasonable compromise. France went into debt supporting and fighting for the American Revolution, yet you expect us to believe that upon their return home to their mother country, who had eyes on the American Revolution, from the start, that they had no aspirations of throwing off their own oppressive monarchy, as if doing so was some sort of big fat unrelated coincidence. It would help matters if you didn't carry on as if someone was trying to introduce the 'square wheel' into the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

More sources from our Bibliography

• "Benjamin Franklin, the American Ambassador, and the very embodiment of the new nation's simple virtues, became the most sought after man in Parisian society. Between 1775 and 1787, the public was deluged with writings on all aspects of America. — Doyle, 1988, Origins of the French Revolution, p. 94>

• From Louis Madelin a noted French historian:
     — ...the men who were to be the makers of the [French] Revolution were all to come into the world : Brissot in 1754, Lafayette in 1757...   — <Madelin, 1916, p. 14>
    — Madelin refers to Lafayette as one of the leaders of the revolution. "Nothing would be more interesting than to draw up a list of the leaders, from Lafayette to Santerre..." — Madelin, 1916, p. 28.
     —  "The bourgeois militia, which had completed its organization, forthwith laid hands on Lafayette and made him Commandant...”— Madelin, 1916, p. 82>

• The Enlightenment movement also had representatives in other countries, including ... Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson in the American colonies. All maintained contacts of the French philopshers.<Anderson, 2007, p. 154>

More sources outlining American involvement forthcoming. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Reflection

In six years of fairly active editing, I've never been involved in either an ANI or a DNR; in the last few weeks I've been tagged on both, as well as being accused of lack of civility, hounding, stalking, character assassination, ad hominem attacks and a few others I can't immediately recall. We should be able to resolve these issues without arousing that level of hostility - and if we can't, maybe we should step out. Which is what I've done, so I'm not going to involve myself in this discussion but I'd like to make a couple of comments FWIW.

(1) Take a look at Wikipedia guidelines on Writing a Good Lead; it provides suggestions for a lot of the ground recycled above. I'm not a procedures guy per se but consciously ignoring guidelines is far more useful than ignorance of them;

(2) We have to accept interpretations of history vary, and be prepared to challenge our own, not just those of others. Dunkirk is viewed very differently in the UK from France; Canadians and Americans see the War of 1812 from almost polar opposites.

(3) Lafayette is a far more substantial figure in American accounts of the French Revolution than he is in France. The idea the debt incurred fighting the American war broke the French economy is not true; in 1788, total French debt was only 55% of GNP, versus 181% in the UK, 62% in the US. (I've updated the Causes section in the article if you're curious). Yes, (parts of) the wording of the Declaration came from Jefferson; Ho Chi Minh's declaration of Vietnamese independence in 1946 was deliberately lifted from the US version and I've yet to see any American claiming credit for that revolution. We need to be careful about overly simplistic causal conclusions;

(4) The Lead summarises the article content; if its not in the content, it can't be in the Lead. So the huge amounts of energy spent on this have arguably started from the wrong place. While this has been going on, I've updated large parts of the article - comments welcome.

(5) Wikipedia stats show between 50-60% of users only ever look at the Lead; so it does need to be 'correct'.

(6) However, we can't just say its not covered in French or English history books, so leave it out. This is English-language Wikipedia; many will be American, who have been taught a specific view. If we say nothing about the connection between the two events, we miss an opportunity; if we recycle popular or minority tropes, we're misleading them (my objection to the wording inserted on 28 May). So we have to say something - I liked the version suggested on 8 October, which has now been replaced, but I can live with the current one. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: I pretty much agree with you that people need to calm down, and discuss. There is a lot of hostility, name-calling, violation of content policy (especially WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH), violations of behavioral guidelines (notably WP:CIVIL) going on at the article (none of it by you, near as I can tell), and there are circular discussions at the Talk page that either aren't about improving the article, or aren't going anywhere. That all needs to stop, and from a WP:CIVIL people need to take it down a notch—make that several notches— and discuss. Failing that, there are other methods of dispute resolution; there is Third opinion, mediation (which I think was tried but rejected), and there is the question of an Rfc. But the name-calling and policy violations have to stop.

I could go point-by-point down your list, and agree with them all and tell you why; #1-5 anyway. Your point six was less clear to me. I totally agree with your lead-off quote in #6, as I find en-wiki very provincial in a lot of ways, because of lack of awareness of non-English sources. That's a kind of systemic bias in en-wiki, although an understandable one to some extent. Imho, that bias is showing up at the article recently, and non-en, non-fr viewpoints should certainly be considered. The part of your #6 that confused me, was your third sentence ("If we say nothing..."). First, I assume you are talking about the influence that the American Revolution had on the France Revolution, simply because that's the hot button on this page, but you didn't say so and I didn't want to make assumptions. If that *is* what you meant by it, then I don't know what you mean by "missed opportunity".

Secondly you said, "So we have to say something," but without a policy-based justification for it. Why do we have to say something? We should only say something about it in the body of the article, if that view has sufficient weight among historians of the event; if it only represents a tiny minority of historians, then we don't; that's policy. And I can't stress your #4 enough; if it's not in the body, then it can't be mentioned in the lead; that's clear, and I agree with you that much of the discussion on this page focusing on whether it should be in the *lead* are misguided, and should have been concentrating first on whether it belongs in the body. Btw, just because I don't understand something, you don't "owe" me an explanation; I just wanted to indicate what I thought maybe wasn't clear. Hang in there, you're doing good. Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, while the discussion has sometimes taken on a less than friendly tone, I haven't seen any name calling, or anything like that around here, so let's not create a problem in an area where none exists. I also agree with most of what Robinvp11 says, especially about his exception to the claim that something can not be stated simply because some of the sources don't mention it. When we have a wide variety of sources it is quite normal for some to concentrate in areas where others do not, and in the process, many a topic is not covered in a given source. This is especially true with summary accounts found in encyclopedias, btw. When the sources vary then we must consider the facts in question further, rather than pointing at what sources don't mention this or that to determine historical weight. When it comes to the years leading up to the French Revolution, there are simply too many facts involving the Americans to be ignored -- facts that even French and other non America sources have covered. The attempt to block such coverage, with claims of a "tiny minority" covering American involvement, while reasonable compromises are snuffed, along with the effort to have us only consult a small selection of encyclopedias, apart from being less than sincere, has greatly turned the discussion into a less than friendly affair. The way around this is to not ignore points made in a discussion and strike a reasonable compromise, as none of us own this article. As was said, no one wants to add another section or large amounts of text to cover American involvements – but to block any such coverage would amount to nothing less than POV pushing and censorship, which, needless to say, will only make for continued heated and dragged out discussions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I don't think that anyone here is being insincere. Statements to the contrary are not helpful. About the meat of the issue, the reason why some of us are advocating looking at encyclopedias (tertiary sources) is because there are too many secondary sources to get an easy overview of what scholars consider the most important causes of the revolution. If you think we're cherry-picking encyclopedias, then suggest which other encyclopedias we should consult. For my part, I did not cherry-pick. I went to the first online French encyclopedia whose publisher (Larousse) I recognized, and summarized what it said the major causes of the revolution are. It does not mention the influence of the American Revolution. That does not mean that the American Revolution had no influence (and I'm aware that there was some influence). It simply means that the compilers of the Encyclopédie Larousse did not view that influence as a great enough factor, compared to all the other factors, to include in their article. In the end, this is not a question of whether or not there was any influence. It's just a question of how much of a factor the American revolution was, in comparison with other factors (i.e., WP:DUE weight). -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I was told that no one had said to "look no further than the encyclopedias...", but was also told, "Please stick to the WP:TERTIARY sources". We were also told that only a "tiny minority" of historians cover any American involvement, which remains far from substantiated, not even a general explanation, which flies in the face of all the sources presented here. If anything is not helpful it's the contradictory and unsubstantiated statements made to other editors on the Talk page. Yes, I find that a bit less than sincere, and putting it in those words was actually being polite - since you've brought this up. Expecting editors to ignore the dozens of scholars who have authored their own works is not how Wikipedia works. The issue with only consulting encyclopedias, on a specific topic, has been well addressed, and imo, is an unfair attempt to block any coverage of all the events, facts, surrounding American involvement leading up to the French Revolution. There are many such events, as has been outlined, and again, often covered by French and other non American sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on the basis of weight. There are probably tens of thousands of scholarly works on the French Revolution. Pointing to "dozens of scholars" means nothing unless you can put those dozens of scholars in the context of the wider scholarship. That's why we're turning to tertiary sources to assess weight. You keep insisting that we listen to the scholars you've raised, but you keep ignoring the basic issue of weight. We're not going to make any progress this way. Instead of accusing us of insincerity, suggest other tertiary sources that we should consult. I came into this without a firm position (and I still don't have a firm position). I know that the American Revolution had some influence on the French Revolution, but I don't know if that influence is important enough to discuss in the lede. Based on the tertiary sources we've evaluated so far, I'm leaning towards not mentioning the American Revolution in the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No one has covered "tens of thousands" of scholarly works around here to determine weight, including yourself and Mathglot, who has made the unfounded claim that only a "tiny "minority" have covered the events in question, so it's a bit unfair to expect me to do so. As explained, sources vary in their coverage, and many often leave certain events out. Many of the sources on the French Revolution only cover the battles, others concentrate on politics, and such. Given the facts involved with American involvement and the sources covering them, we have ample reason to cover these events in brief, if for anything, for historical context. As I assume you know, the events leading up to any major event are often covered in any comprehensive work on that subject. Are you assuming that Jefferson's and Franklin's involvement in drafting the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, their involvement, along with Lafayette, in organizing the Assembly of Notables, and that the writings of Lafayette, Franklin and Jefferson which were widely covered in most French journals before the revolution, are insignificant, not worthy of even a mention? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that secondary sources focus on different aspects of the revolution is precisely why we need to look at tertiary sources to judge weight. I have no doubt that you can find secondary sources, from among the countless sources on the French Revolution, that discuss the American connection. That doesn't tell me anything about weight, though. I'm not assuming anything about Jefferson, Franklin and Lafayette's importance. I'm looking at what tertiary sources say. If you can show that tertiary sources generally place great emphasis on the influence of the American Revolution, then you'll convince me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That argument, such that it is, can be used in regards to the coverage of any topic. As such, we look to all the sources that cover the events in question. As you may have noticed below, User 021120x has provided us with a tertiary source, if that is really what you need all by itself to justify the coverage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

For some subjects, it's possible to get a relatively complete overview of the secondary sources. For others, like the French Revolution, that's absolutely impossible unless it's your day job for a few decades, so we have to turn to tertiary sources to help assess weight.

Back when we had only evaluated 8 encyclopedias, you accused us of cherry-picking. Now that one encyclopedia has been found that mentions the American Revolution, you're suddenly in favor of using that one encyclopedia to assess weight. You're cherry-picking, which is exactly what you accused me and Mathglot of doing before. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Just a reminder:  WP:Reliable Sources : "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered."  Even if the topic of American involvement and influence was a "minority view", which has not been substantiated, it still has to be covered in proportion. Given all the events involving the Americans leading up to the French Revolution it would be highly inappropriate to ignore these things, given all the sources that have covered them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources, continued

As Encyclopedia sources go, User 021120x has provided us with an excellent one, which can be viewed here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)