Talk:French Revolution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Very old (pre-2004) or undated comments

--Please note that the painting--Liberty Leading the People by Delacroix was not depicting the French Revolution of 1789. It is shows the revolution of 1830. 2.2.06 SLOD---

request from the main page:

Somebody PLEASE RE-NEW this article for the sake of Jimbo Wales!!! :) ;(

You simply do not refer to the monarchs of France as 'King Louis'. One writes and says 'Louis XVI', 'Louis XVIII' etc. This is a typical uneducated Americanism. In addition, what does '... fiscally equated the French state ... ' mean?? What kind of machine did this?

There was more than one French revolution, and that's not including the Commune uprising. I also think that referring back to the American revolution isn't exactly NPOV. -- Tarquin

Uf. There are lots of links here. Maybe we should have French Revolutions with links to French Revolution of 1789, French Revolution of 1830, French Revolution of 1848, Fronde, Vendee, French May 1968, Commune de Paris and whatever may be. -- Error 01:32, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Of course we all know the Revolution really happened because the French don't play cricket. - Bagpuss

---

Waooooh. This has to be replaced by a serious article.

This is written by someone who knows some of the history of France and Great Britain but not much. Example: at the time, more "peasants" were landowners in France than in Britain -- by far. Second, British taxation was by way of selective consumption taxes that imposed a heavy burden on the poor. The British aristocracy paid very little taxes. (In 1776, America revolted over taxation -- unfair taxation -- without representation.) Louis XIV's debts had no effect on the French revolution. Isolating the court at Versailles did. He died 74 years before the Revolution. (Wall Street crashed 74 years ago -- is it the cause of the whatever today?) Louis XV could (and should) have resolved the country's finances; France was still one of the wealthiest countries in the world. But, XV stupidly took them into the War of the Austrian Succession for no reason and at great cost. Then, the French & Indian War was a disaster. etc. etc. etc. The roots of the French Revolution can be traced to XV, but it was the privileges (nearly absurd when examined in depth) that the Old Noblesse (including the church Noblesse) refused to give up that created a frustration by ordinary people that change would never come. The French people love their King. The guillotined Louis XVI but then made Napoleon more than a "King", then three more Kings after him until 1871 and even then they wanted another King and today still argue about it. This article needs massive work from someone who knows what they are talking about. The idiocy of the "age of wit" at the French court under XVI exemplifies the decay underway. User:Black Widow

I don't claim to be a history expert, but I do think that Louis XIV had a lot to do with the Revolution. He waged more wars than either of his successors (though smaller ones, perhaps - I don't know), and he blew a huge amount of money on the construction of Versailles. True, Louis XV could have remedied the situation had he heeded the "Letter to the Dauphin" or whatever it was called, but it was his granddaddy who set the tone for his half-century on the throne.

And yes, 74 years is a long time, but we've gone through ten presidents in that time, whereas the French only went through two kings. And please explain what the isolation of the Court had to do with the Revolution. -Smack 05:18 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It is infamous that when Zhou Enlai was asked in in 1972 what he though of the effects of the French revolution, he replied that is was, "too soon to tell."

There is no way we will get actual agreement on the causes or the effects of the French Revolution. The best we can hope for is to present the conflicting theses and attribute them appropriately (e.g. "Simon Schama claims...", "Alfred Cobban claims..." It's a legitimately controversial subject. Come with sources. Even if you can't quote chapter and verse, it's probably reasonably to at least know and acknowledge the genealogy of your views (Marxist? Free-enterprise capitalist?) -- Jmabel 04:51, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It should not be too hard. See American Civil War for an example that is fairly sane. Daniel Quinlan 04:56, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

The Switzerland page states: "In 1798, armies of the French Revolution conquered Switzerland." I think that could be better dealt with on this page. Daniel Quinlan 10:23, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

Seems to me that things like that deserve at least a mention in both places, one cross-referring to the other, which really handles the story. -- Jmabel 04:51, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"King" and "king"

I SIMPLY wish that contributors would know the difference between 'King' and 'king', and be able to write credible English. Sometimes the text has the flavour of an innocent translation. On the other hand, we all know that Americans simply cannot write English, let alone understand it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.42.247.91 (talk • contribs) 15 Jan 2006.

As, apparently, some non-Americans simply cannot understand the policy in favor of civility and against personal attacks, let alone conform to it.

In most of these contexts, even in Commonwealth English, either "king" or "King" would be correct, though their connotations tend to be slightly different, with the former most properly referring to the role and the latter to the person. However, this article is written in American English and, as WP:MOS#Titles points out, "American English and Commonwealth English differ in their inclination to use capitals. Commonwealth English uses capitals more widely than American English does. This may apply to titles for people." Differences between Commonwealth and American English are not errors in the latter any more than in the former: they are differences between two varieties of a language. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

At the bottom of the article French Revolution, the following

''This article makes use of the out-of-copyright'' [http://www.outfo.org/literature/pg/etext06/8hfrr10.txt History of the French Revolution from 1789 to 1814]'', by François Mignet ([[1824]]), as made available by [[Project Gutenberg]].''

...shows up as...

This article makes use of the out-of-copyright History of the French Revolution from 1789 to 1814, by François Mignet (1824), as made available by Project Gutenberg.

On my system, at least, there is an undesired space between the external link and the following comma. I believe this is new with the new software upgrade, and I presume it is not specific to my configuration.

1. Does anyone understand what is going on?
2. Is there either a fix on the way or a good, generalizable workaround? (Obviously in this case I could move the restart of the italics to after the comma, but I'm interested in a general solution)

-- Jmabel 04:35, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Are you seeing an icon following the external link? (Looks like two intersecting boxes). If not, there could be some browser/compatibility issue: there's meant to be an icon there, and it's present for me. - Nunh-huh 05:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I am not seeing a space. →Raul654 05:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Try refreshing the page (Mozilla: click Reload (or Ctrl-R), IE / Opera: Ctrl-F5, Safari: Cmd-R, Konqueror Ctrl-R). There should be an image after the link. Can you see other images on Wikipedia ok? Angela. 08:15, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same problem. Screenshot:

File:SuffrageExternalLinks.gif

This seems to only occur when the external link wraps around because it reaches the edge of the screen. (Note that the icon on the second external link, which doesn't wrap around, shows up fine while the first link wraps around and has the problem.) That's the way it's been happening whenever I've seen this. Also note that a slice of the icon does show up after the "to", when the link wraps around.

Perhaps the reason others aren't having the problem is because they're using a different screen resolution from Jmabel, so the text wraps at different places? I'm using 800x600, and I would guess Jmabel is too. LuckyWizard 06:20, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Yup. And 800 x 600 should be supported, no? -- Jmabel 20:20, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm running at 1024 x 768, and I've seen the same problem, though on other pages. I'd say the issue is just one of wrapping within a link. Anyone could reproduce it by adjusting their browser width to cause a wrap in a multi-word link. -Rholton 14:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Useful sources

I've noticed http://membres.lycos.fr/histoire1789/, which I plan to read through to see if it covers topics we've overlooked, and which seems to me to be probably good enough to mention in the article even though it's in French. Does anyone have other useful sources (especially online sources) to recommend? -- Jmabel 06:00, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC) (adding) http://mapage.noos.fr/mlopez/index1.htm also looks good. Also in French. -- Jmabel 06:04, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Stanley Loomis: Paris in the Terror; Lippincott, 1964 should be listed in FURTHER READING.Tallyrand: "Treason is merely a question of dates" (p. 104).

The navbox template

I have an idea for a slightly modified template design, but I'm not sure if it's too fancy. Does anyone have any particularly strong thoughts on the issue?

-Didactohedron 02:09, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Tennis Court Oath

With reference to the members of the first two estates who joined the communes shortly after the Oath, someone recently and anonymously added, "Their desire to weaken the power of the monarchy outweighed the loss of power they suffered through empowering the Third Estate." I don't think this is on the mark, and I am reverting. Abbé Sieyès, for example, identified almost totally with the Third Estate, as did much of the lower clergy. I suggest that if we want to get into motivations at this level, we take it up in one of the more detailed articles rather than here in the main overview article. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:09, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Cut probable newbie experiment

I've cut from the article the following, which I assume was just newbie experiment. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:19, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

IN QUICK SUMMARY:

1. 3rd estate thinks that the people in the bastille have weapons

2. 800 people charge the building, demanding weapons

3. the general in the bastille makes things difficult [instead of just explaining that he had no weapons and proving it, he made a big stink of how he couldn't hand the weapons

4. the angry people kill many men including the general

5. have a 'glorious' victory- but find no weapons

6. It became the symbol of the French Revolution

The Durants

Someone recently added The Age of Napoleon: a History of European Civilization from 1789 to 1815by Will and Ariel Durant to the list of Further Reading. I would consider that strictly a popularizing work. It's not bad, but it's hardly a proper reference-level book. I'm certainly not going to remove it without consensus, but do others feel it belongs in the list or not? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:51, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree. We clearly need a much better reference list, though. I'd suggest adding Schama's Citizens (which, while popular history, is more scholarly, and more on point, than the Durant book), Doyle's book on the Origins and his Oxford History of the Revolution, Probably some stuff by Lefebvre - probably there's a few more books that could be added in, as well. The article itself is kind of a mess. It includes all that silly "rising bourgeoisie" stuff as a cause of the revolution when that's been under challenge since the 50s, and was pretty clearly discredited by the time Doyle wrote his origins book in 1980. Once I'm done reading through the French Revolution section of my exam list, perhaps I'll have a go at this and its related articles. john k 20:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All of this is at least moderately well covered in List of historians of the French Revolution, and I believe that is where it should stay (though more there would be good). I'll add that article to Template:French Revolution. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Changes to article

Hello all - I've been making some changes to the article, largely based on Doyle's Origins of the French Revolution. I think the account that we had previously was kind of frozen in what historians were thinking around 1950 - the focus on clear class conflicts, and so forth, and I wanted to update it. Doyle's account, written in 1980, is, I think, still seen as the standard account, at least in terms of its narrative of the political/fiscal crisis that led to the collapse of the monarchy, and the months in 1789 when the revolution itself began. That said, many writers have followed Doyle, and I've not really incorporated any of the stuff that's been written about cultural origins, and so forth, into the narrative, in part because I was sticking to the current format, which kind of compels a political narrative. And I think that most would agree that Doyle's account remains the standard narrative of the political story, at least. Any specific problems are, of course, up for revision. john k 23:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edit

Hello, I have removed some stranges letters on the first line that look like vandalism. They were "The period of the French Revolution K PWNS YO BTS MUTHAS in the history of France covers the years between"... If this has some kind of meaning, sorry for having removed it ; but then please explains what it means :) notepad 16:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems that User:165.138.113.252 has tried to do some vandalism on this page. notepad 16:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is a much-vandalized page. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:51, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes this page is vandalized.

This page is still vandalized 06-14-2005

Evidently User:165.138.113.252 refers to himself as "K," (perhaps a reference to the protaganist in "The Trial?").Pwns (pronounced "poans") literally "owns," means "dominates" or "defeats." "Yo" is American ghetto language for "your." "Bts" is an abbreviation for "butts." "Muthas," again, ghetto for "mothers." He was addressing his fellow wikians, not as his literal mater familias, but as a shortened form of "muthafuckas."

So all in all, he was saying "Haha, I got you." Hopefully, it was worth it for him. 68.219.72.114 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The war on writing

Edits like this make me wonder: is there a specific mandate in favor of dull writing that I somehow missed? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

There is a header saying "The french revolution is gay." Can someone change that back to the proper heading (I don't know what it was supposed to be... Beth

Did France think in ecology?

[empty section]

Pictures

In my opinion the article lacks some good pictures, especially in the middle. How about adding Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's picture of the de:Freiheitsbaum (de:Bild:Freiheitsbaum.jpg)? NightBeAsT 21:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

In reference to a point made above, the inclusion of Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People does not seem accurate for this article, as it depicts the 1830 Revolution, and not the 1789 one. I'd support its replacement with something more pertinent from the era. Vladdraculdragon 15:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The Church

In the lead, with reference to the Roman Catholic Church in France, I believe "forced to undergo radical restructuring" is more on the mark than "obliged to foretake extreme reformation". "Forced" is certainly not to strong a word: at times it was deadly force. "Reformation" suggests it may have been mainly a doctrinal matter: in fact, other than apostolic succession, there wasn't a lot of doctrinal change required. Except for the brief episode of de-Christianization, the changes were mostly to (1) the financial foundation of the Church and (2) the mode of appointing/selecting priests and bishops. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Death by fart?

The version I'm look at says:

"On July 14 1789, after four hours of combat, the insurgents farted, killing the governor, Marquis Bernard de Launay, and several of his guards." It also mentions a "sticky vulva king". Is that accurate info about the French Revolution? Somehow I think not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.59.62.58 (talk • contribs) 7 Nov 2005.

Lord knows why, but the French Revolution and related topics are among the most often vandalized articles in Wikipedia, usually vandalized from IP addresses with no other edits. I would guess that either it's one idiot with a good ability to fake IP addresses and nothing better to do, or it is several idiots with nothing better to do, at least one of whom has a good ability to fake IP addresses. The vandalism seems too complicated for a vandalbot. Annoying. When you see this crap, do feel free to go into the history and revert to an earlier version, with a comment "reverting vandalism". Usually these are fixed within hours, often within minutes, but this seems to be an area where someone is about as dedicated to adding vandalism as some of us are to removing it. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, topics found in high school textbooks are frequently vandalized. Rklawton 01:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

how

how do you revert it back? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelHaKorean (talk • contribs) 15 Nov 2005.

I was about to answer on this user's talk page, but apparently he is currently blocked for plagiarism and vandalism, so I will let him work out reversion for himself. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Innocents guillotined

I removed the following from the first paragraph of the "Causes" section: "They have estimated that more than 37,000 innocent citizens were guillotined."

1. Without some indication of who "they" are, this is uncited.
2. This number is higher than any I recall seeing, so I am not letting it pass without citation.
3. In any event, this is not one of the causes of the Revolution, and if it belongs in the article, that is not the section where it belongs.

Jmabel | Talk 08:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Champ-de-Mars

23 Dec. 05 I'm not sure where this comment goes. Please move it if need be but: "The National Guard under Lafayette's command confronted the crowd... and Lafayette ordered his men to fire into the crowd, resulting in the killing of as many as fifty people."

That needs to be edited. it was Jean-Sylvain Bailly who ordered the killings rather than Lafayette who had tried to disperse the crowd gathered on the Champ-de-Mars. However his efforts were in vain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.83.152 (talk • contribs) 24 Dec 2005.

Mignet, the source I used, writes:

The insurrection became alarming. Lafayette again repaired to the Champ de Mars, at the head of twelve hundred of the national guard. Bailly accompanied him, and had the red banner unfurled. The crowd was then summoned to disperse in the name of the law; it refused to retire, and, contemning authority, shouted, "Down with the red flag!" and assailed the national guard with stones. Lafayette ordered his men to fire, but in the air. The crowd was not intimidated with this, and resumed the attack; compelled by the obstinacy of the insurgents, Lafayette then ordered another discharge, a real and effective one. The terrified multitude fled, leaving many dead on the field. The disturbances now ceased, order was restored; but blood had flown, and the people never forgave Bailly or Lafayette the cruel necessity to which the crowd had driven them.

So it's pretty clear that Mignet, at least, believed that Lafayette gave the order. What is your source? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

My source, being far inferior to that, is only this website translated by google and myself: http://www.freinet.org/creactif/moulin/EXPOSES/HISTOIRE/REVOLTE/REV11.HTM

I believe I've taken up an idea and have run wild with it. I must have misinterpreted it all. I'm terribly sorry for causing this. See, Lafayette's an idol of mine and I was disillusioned by the barbaric happening-- but that's history, right? Not everything was how we want it to have been.

Ignorantly I went ahead, without thinking of checking the talk here, and changed the following pages: [1] [2]

I had changed [3], but you'll find it is back to the original entry.

Though, now I'm interested- where did you find your source? I'd really like to read more of the actual accounts like your source has.

I'm confused. You say you accept my citation, but you overwrote it in the article, citing yours? I'm really confused. Could you please explain what you actually intend to do here? I'm inclined to revert, but maybe I'm missing something?

In any event, an English translation of Mignet is easily found online. It's listed in the References section of the article, but for your convenience, it is at http://www.outfo.org/literature/pg/etext06/8hfrr10.txt. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Having gotten no answer, I'll go back to my version, which is to say Mignet's. I'm not wedded to this, but if it is to change, it ought to be based on another reasonably serious source, not a more-or-less-random website. -- Jmabel | Talk 11:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition?

The article needs to start out by stating exactly what the French Revolution was.

Bathrobe 8 Jan 2006

I kind of thought it already did. I've tried making a slight edit, is this clearer? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No counter-revolution?

Vendee rising? Royalists? Dieu et Roi? Maybe someone knowledgeable could start a counter revolution topic? Ksenon 22:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Revolt in the Vendée, Émigré (stub), Chouan (stub). That's about all I can find offhand. On a slightly less counter-revolutionary note Thermidorian Reaction. But yes, far more is needed. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Esp. references in this article. Oh well, I'll give it a shot soon when I find the time. Ksenon 07:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi protection

Using a cursory review, I discovered that at least 240 of the last 500 edits made to this article have been vandalism and reversion. Furthermore, most of the vandalism has been carried out by anonymous users, so semi-protection should take care of the problem. I would appreciate it if my arguments could be refuted here before protection is removed. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Splash, maybe I didn't make myself clear: the semi-protect is being used to prevent vandalism, not editing by anonymous users. Ingoolemo ^talk 16:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, vandalism remains a definite issue. In the three or so days this article has been unprotected, at least 28 of the <50 edits were vandalism and reversions. I'm not trying to stop anonymous users from editing, I'm trying to stop the vandalism. Ingoolemo ^talk 16:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that semi-protection is a temporary solution, when would you propose unprotecting the page? When the French Revolution is over? -Splash^talk 17:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As Zhou Enlai is claimed to have said to Henry Kissinger on pretty much this question, "It's too soon to tell." [4] And, yes, I know some sources say it wasy Mao, but I don't believe them. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is obviously serious. In the last week since it's been unprotected, it has been edited 97 times. Of these edits, at least 53 were vandalism and reversion—close to 70%. The solution used on George W. Bush that seems pretty effective is to periodically unprotect it to see how much vandalism occurs, and reprotect it if vandalism remains at an unacceptable level. Ingoolemo ^talk 22:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me to be a good provisional solution. - Jmabel | Talk 18:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I plan to do: I'll semi-protect the page now, and we'll leave it semi-protected until February 25. At that date, it will be unprotected for five days. If vandalism levels continue to be unacceptable during those five days, the page will be reprotected. Otherwise, it will be left alone until the problem escalates again. Ingoolemo ^talk 03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it will remain protected for the shortest period that dispels a given vandal. This is way off the level of George W. Bush, where permanent protection is highly controversion. There is no justification, nor mandate for it here. It can stay protected for a few days, tops. -Splash^talk 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page now, and will reprotected for 1-2 days if vandalism continues to be unacceptably high. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I will leave all further explanations at http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=French+Revolution. If I forget to carry out the unprotections I promise, I will not object to Splash or another administrator stepping in. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In my experience reverting vandalized articles, topics covered in secondary schools such as this one are subject to high levels of childish, anonymous, vandalism. In these cases, vandalism falls under two categories: 1) The "Joe is gay" type, and 2) significant content deletion. I've also noticed that these types of articles are vandalized most frequently during U.S. school hours. I suggest we seriously consider identifying all articles commonly vandalized in these ways and semi-protect them. They are, in short, attracting the attention of an immature audience eager to experiment and not all that thoughtful about the extra work they make for the rest of us. OK, and my assistance in this matter comprises my own attempts to make up for my own youth... Rklawton 03:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:SEMI, it is quite clear that we don't use semiprotection to reduce or prohibit anonymous editing in general, and the poll that supported it was highly conditional on that. Article's don't get to invent themselves exceptions to policy just because they don't like anons. Remember also that semi restricts registered users too. -Splash^talk 21:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

French Revolution

Need info for my project, please put extra information about Maxmillian Robespierre and Marie Anotinette, and also Louis XVI!!!

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because the lead is much too short for such a long article, and I don't think the article looks well written at the moment. Only two references are mentioned which I am not sure is enough for such a long article on such an important topic. Worldtraveller 22:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly bogus article

I ran into the Stanley D'Panseax page a while ago and have not heard anything about this character, online nor in the few standard texts that I have checked. I believe it is a hoax. Can somebody verify this, please? I have nominated the article for deletion. If you think that it is a hoax, please vote for deletion here. Thanks. Julius.kusuma 20:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Lies, lies, lies

Lies, lies, lies! Who writes this stuff???

[quote] http://www.cephasministry.com/history_of_masonry_5.html

Masons admitted that they are initiators of revolutions and wars French Revolution.

Today Freemasonry openly acknowledges the French Revolution as its work. In the chamber of Deputies during the session on July 1, 1904 the Marquis de Rosanbo stated:

"Freemasonry has worked in a hidden but constant manner to prepare the revolution... We are then in complete agreement on the point that freemasonry was the only author of the revolution, and the applause which I receive from the Left, and to which I am little accustomed, proves, gentlemen, that you acknowledge with me that it was masonry which made the French revolution."

Mr. Jumel: "We do more than acknowledge it, we proclaim it." [Source: Mgsr. Henri Delassus, La Conjuration anti-chrétienne, vol. 1, 1910, p. 146; quoted in de Poncins, op. cit.,p.30]. [/quote]

Go to Bavarian Illuminati and Weishaupt. There you'll find THE REAL reasons for the French Revolution.

Why is there no information of horrific massacres here? Slaughtering children, raping and killing nuns? And that's just scratching the sufrace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.25.5.69 (talk • contribs) 16 Feb 2006.