Talk:Historiography of the French Revolution

Nationality of Featured Historians

Although perhaps a seemingly minor issue, yet nonetheless of significant importance, is that there is a slant towards featuring more English/American historians than French historians in this specific article. The addition of other historians of French or otherwise European nationality would perhaps provide a fuller picture of French Revolution historiography over the last two centuries. Kfodderst (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Nesta Webster

I deleted the section on Nesta Webster as per WP:FRINGE. She was never an influence on academical historiography, and no sources was provided to show that she was, except a primary quotation of Churchill (thus also violating WP:SYNTH). Google Scholar contains no evidence that she was or is used outside an occult/astrology circle. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

As a historian in the field of French history, particularly in regards to the French Revolution, I agree it is not a major view. But it is a view, nonetheless, and definitely not to be discarded simply as a 'minor' view, let alone deleted altogether. I have reduced its length, and instead allowed that idea to flourish and be expanded on her page. As it stands now, it should not be deleted. There is no violation of WP:SYNTH as it has merely been stated that Churchill followed this idea. Kfodderst (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:SYNTH if the quotation of Churchill is used to exemplify the notability of Webster. As WP:FRINGE makes clear: "Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[3] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner".

As it stands Webster was neither a pioneer in the concoction of conspiracy theories that the Masonry and Illuminati or the Jews had a particular hand in the French Revolution. Such theories went back as far as the time of the French Revolution itself. Neither can any notability be found in the historiography of the French Revolution in the last century. Outside the field of occultism, astrology and other non-academic sources, she is simply not mentioned in academic discourse on this subject. So I am going to give you a deadline of a week to find reliable noteworthy secondary sources that establishes the claim of her noteworthiness in the historiography of the French Revolution. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not have access to JStor, but can somebody have a look on Dale Yoder (Nov 1926). "Current Definitions of Revolution". The American Journal of Sociology. 32 (3). The University of Chicago Press: 433–441. that I found through this Scholar search? --Anneyh (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Churchill was not making an analysis of the French Revolution (he was talking about Jews and the 1/2 sentence used is taken out of context). To make a claim about Churchill you need a reliable secondary source that analyzes Churchill's views of the French Revolution. Rjensen (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Historiography of the French Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061024234308/http://history.osu.edu/people/person.cfm?ID=735 to http://history.osu.edu/people/person.cfm?ID=735

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Interpretations

Hello all

Another editor added some information from the Historiography section of the French Revolution article. I have edited this and added some other information in order to provide more context for the discussion of individual authors in this article. This might result in some repetition of information, but I will try to work through this over the next couple of days to tidy things up.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Restructure of article

Hello all

1) I have restructured the article to make it more logical. In the previous structure, information was presented in a confusing mix of chronological, thematic and biographical sections with often wasn't internally consistent. I have made the main structure chronological with major sections on: 19th century, 20th century and modern (1980 to present). I have added short introductory paragraphs to each major section to present thematic issues.

2) I have added sourced information on a number of historians. I have also removed some unsourced information and summarised some information on minor historians.

3) I have also summarised information on major historians to better focus on historiography; namely: a) Their major works; b) Their interpretation of the Revolution c) Their historical method; d) Their influence on other historians.

This means I have sometimes removed tangential information which is better covered by the main article on the historian. For example, the information on Thiers' political carer is best covered in the main article on him. Similarly, while it is interesting that the first draft of Carlyle's history of the Revolution was accidently burnt, this has nothing to do with its historical importance and is fully covered in the main article on this book.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)