Talk:July Revolution

I cut out a fair bit of stuff, some of it was factually wrong other parts were analysis that probably does not belong in a wikipedia article. -SimonP 01:25, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

Isn't this the same as the July Revolution? Adam Bishop 01:27, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes it is, unfortunately - SimonP 03:25, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

Most links are to July Revolution, so this article should be moved to that. Den fjättrade ankan 03:48, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Um, "Although more than 700 European countries attended..." 700??? D.E. Cottrell 00:22, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My comment would be that this reads as if it's a very poor translation from French. It's really badly written. (User, Mike Friedman, San Francsico, USA, June 29, 2005)

---

"3 glorious days"? Which 3? Dates might be nice... Trekphiler 10:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Assessment

Based on the comments above, I wonder if I should have looked more closely at the language... I hope these issues have been resolved. Meanwhile, the article also lacks references and a military conflict infobox. If applicable, sections for See Also and/or External Links might be nice too. Though I really like the pictures. LordAmeth 07:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

July revolution is the same name used for 1952 Revolution in Egypt. We might need a disambiguation page. --TheEgyptian 18:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, this is the primary topic. Put a {{For}} at the top. –EdC 17:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Done.--TheEgyptian (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

There seems to be some discrepancy regarding the dates. After talking about Charles X's ascension on September 1824, the article goes on to discuss the events leading upto the 1830 revolution. The interval appears to be treated as 8 months instead of 6 years. Please read the section Charles X's reign and see if it fits or not. - {unsigned|59.91.241.58|14:25, 26 March 2007}}

I noticed that, too. September 1824 - Charles becomes king; 8 months later - new laws; April (which year) - unpopular; July 1830 - revolution. I looked at Charles's page, but found further confusion. One ref for April says 1827 - so what happened between (May ?) 1825 and 1827 and then to 1830 ? -- Beardo 21:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

Although the article is well written, perhaps it is too well written. By this, I mean that Wikipedia is not a novel. As an example, I've replaced the sentence: "It was a hot, dry summer with temperatures constantly around 30°C (90°F). No rain had fallen. The sky was cloudless, the air filled with dust, the heat shimmering. Anyone who could afford to leave Paris for the country already had." by "It was a hot, dry summer, pushing those who could afford it to leave Paris for the country." Perhaps this substitution is not for the best for the writing style, but it is surely better for the lenght! We are not writing here a novel! Basically, we needs facts and historical analysis of events, not literature! As a side-note, I've seen some very well written articles concerning art subjects: but this fits better the entry. Here, we're dealing with a historical events, and readers want the facts quick. Sorry to upset those who will see in this remark some kind of McDonald history, but Wikipedia is not Balzac... WP:TRITE: "Use clear, concise sentences." Tazmaniacs 17:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this assessment. You claim that writing style is substituted for facts. For example, let's consider the sentence you quoted, and the parts of it you removed. The temperature around 30 degrees - it's a fact. No rain had fallen - it's a fact. The sky cloudless, the air filled with dust - facts. I don't see why it contradicts Wikipedia policy - the sentence was perfectly clear. Btw, I'd like to see citations for those, but that's another matter. In general, I think we should always think thrice before deleting perfectly good information, as restoring it is much harder. Top.Squark (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This article boasts obvious and laughable monarchist bias. The frivolous descriptions are merely icing. Consider this line: "They had no wish to share the fate of a similar contingent of Swiss Guards back in 1792, who had held their ground against another such mob and were torn to pieces for their valour." 108.199.241.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Le Constitutionnel

"The popular leftist newspaper Le Constitutionnel..." and "...conservative newspapers such as the Journal des débats, Le Moniteur, and Le Constitutionnel..." do not look consistent. --Rumping (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange omission

What does "members of the refused to lend money" mean? It seems a word or phrase has been omitted. --194.150.65.47 (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Strange omission

How can this article exist without a painting of the bare breasted woman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.27.37 (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Missing information

Subheading: Charles X's reign. "On 12 April ... the Chamber of Deputies roundly rejected the government's proposal to change the inheritance laws." Could we have the year please. It is not clear whether we are still in 1824, have jumped to 1827, or are somewhere in between.Celeborn78 (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)