Sur la page ‘Wikipedia’ du Wikipedia anglophone, on peut lire ce qui suit :
“Research conducted by Mark Graham of the Oxford Internet Institute in 2009 indicated that the geographic distribution of article topics is highly uneven, Africa being the most underrepresented. Across 30 language editions of Wikipedia, historical articles and sections are generally Eurocentric and focused on recent events.”
Sur Wikipedia, « les articles et les sections historiques sont généralement eurocentriques ».
L’Eurocentrisme est la manière dont l’histoire est racontée en occident (et sur Wikipedia, du moins pour ce qui est des langues occidentales). C’est une vision colonialiste du monde.
Dans cette vision, le colonialisme (ou impérialisme) européen est présenté favorablement. Il est peu ou pas fait cas de ses aspects négatifs.
Un aspect maintenant assez connu de l’histoire eurocentrique est l’occultation de la Révolution haïtienne, une occultation à laquelle Michel-Rolph Trouillot a consacré un livre, Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History.
Marlene Daut remarque, dans Tropics of Haiti : “It is by now rather commonplace in academic circles to refer to the idea that the Haitian Revolution has been ‘silenced’ for the past two centuries in both scholarship and popular history.”
Malgré la reconnaissance du fait dans les « cercles académiques », l’occultation de la Révolution haïtienne se perpétue, notamment dans le système éducatif et universitaire français.
J’ai déjà cherché à attirer l’attention sur ce fait auprès d’un grand nombre d’historiens de la Révolution française, auprès de députés français, auprès de la Ligue des droits de l’homme, et même auprès de la Fondation pour la mémoire de l’esclavage (dont ce devrait être le rôle, n’est-elle pas payée pour cela ?), sans que rien ne change.
Sur le Wikipedia anglophone, si un article est consacré à la Révolution haïtienne, ainsi qu’une section de l’article ‘French Revolution’, elle est en revanche occultée dans le reste de l’article (par exemple dans l’introduction et dans les sections ‘Role of Ideology, ‘French Revolution Wars’, et ‘Historiography’, malgré mes efforts pour y remédier.
La page ‘French Revolution’ est controlée par deux individus, Robinvp11 et Aemilius Adolphin, qui y consacrent manifestement une grande partie de leur vie.
Dans la page ‘Talk’, j’ai ouvert le topic suivant ‘Silencing the Haitian Revolution and the Imperialism of the French Revolution’, renommée par Robinvp11 ‘Alleged Silencing the Haitian Revolution and the Imperialism of the French Revolution’.
La discussion n’a mené à rien autre qu’à un refus d’évoquer la Révolution haïtienne partout où il est légitime de l’évoquer. Le même topic ouvert sur la page ‘Talk’ de l’article ‘Haitian Revolution’, qui jusqu’à présent n’évoquait pas l’occultation de cette révolution, a en revanche été accueilli favorablement, par Remsense, qui a lu la discussion (le dialogue de sourds) avec Robinvp11 et Aemilius Adolphin (et warshy) et fait ce commentaire : “But I've read everything you wrote there, they clearly didn't do a very good job.”
Voici l’échange :
Moi
A major aspect of the historiography of the French Revolution is the ‘silencing’ of the Haitian Revolution and the imperialist dimension of the French Revolution.
On the ‘silencing’ of the Haitian Revolution, Michel-Rolph Trouillot wrote Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History.
In Tropics of Haiti, Marlene Daut wrote: “It is by now rather commonplace in academic circles to refer to the idea that the Haitian Revolution has been ‘silenced’ for the past two centuries in both scholarship and popular history.”
She also wrote, in a 2021 article published in the New York Times, “Napoleon Isn’t a Hero to Celebrate”:
“...the French education system, which I taught in from 2002 to 2003, encourages the belief that France is a colorblind country with an “emancipatory history.” When French schools do teach colonial history, they routinely tout that the country was the first of the European world powers to abolish slavery.”
I can see that in the Lead and elsewhere, the same concealment of the Haitian Revolution and of the imperialist dimension of the French Revolution occurs.
For instance, in “Role of ideology”, “French Revolutionary Wars” and “Historiography”.
Robinvp11
We've had this discussion several times already. This particular article is a summary of major events and (short) analyses of key aspects of the French Revolution. There is an entirely separate and detailed article on the Historiography of the French Revolution; as far as I'm aware, no one is stopping you inserting (properly sourced) views into that. From a quick review of its edit history, you don't seem to have taken that opportunity, but I might be wrong.
I'm not getting involved in the Historiography debate (personally, I don't think we even need the current level of detail), but the Lead is supposed to be a clear and concise summary of the events detailed in the article, not a commentary. Why not read Wikipedia guidelines on writing a good Lead?
"I can see that in the Lede and elsewhere, the same concealment of the Haitian Revolution and of the imperialist dimension of the French Revolution occurs."
(1) The current Lead does NOT claim “...France is a color blind country with an “emancipatory history"", or anything approximating such a statement. Are you asking that it include a rebuttal of a claim that doesn't appear in it? That doesn't make any sense, but more importantly, how would its inclusion make the Lead more balanced?
(2) Two years ago, another editor argued strenuously for a paragraph in the Lead arguing the French Revolution was both inspired by, and intellectually indebted to the American Revolution. That too was left out because it is not a FACT, but a subjective INTERPRETATION, (in this case, one restricted to a (very) small subset of American conservatives).
So (a) you are not being victimised, and (b) if you feel your views are being unfairly ignored, then take it to arbitration.
Moi
I can read this in the Lead:
“...many French politicians saw war as the best way to unite the nation and preserve the revolution by exporting it to other countries. These factors resulted in the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars in April 1792...”
This is the POV of the "French politicians", not that of the countries invaded by French armies.
There is no mention of the war again the slaves or the abolition of slavery in the colonies; and to say “exporting [the revolution] to other countries” is to take a French POV, not the POV of the countries invaded.
Robinvp11
I'm frustrated but unsurprised that having invested time and patience in providing a reasonable response to your complaint, you've simply chosen to ignore all of it.
"...many French politicians saw war as the best way to unite the nation and preserve the revolution by exporting it to other countries. These factors resulted in the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars in April 1792...”
This is the POV of the "French politicians", not that of the countries invaded by French armies.
That's an extremely partial interpretation of "POV", but if it's all you've got, I'll take this content out. Perhaps you can respond to the points made in my original response, otherwise I'm going to leave it.
Moi
You wrote the "Alleged Silencing the Haitian Revolution and the Imperialism of the French Revolution". You added "alleged" to what I wrote.
Do you dispute what the two Haitian historians I quoted, Michel-Rolph Trouillot and Marlene Daut, wrote?
Manuel Covo and Megan Maruschke made the following observation in 2021, in the presentation of The French Revolution as an Imperial Revolution:
“Attempts to reframe the Age of Revolutions as imperial in nature have not fully integrated the French Revolution.”
That's what I'm saying, and so far it's what I can see in the Lead and elsewhere, for example, in "Role of Ideology," "French Revolution Wars," and "Historiography."
Robinvp11
"Perhaps you can respond to the points made in my original response, otherwise I'm going to leave it."
Aemilius Adolphin
There is no attempt to "silence" the Haitian revolution. This article already discusses the Haitian revolution in detail, perhaps too much detail, here. There is also an entire article on the Haitian Revolution which also discusses its historiography. I suggest your time would be more productively spent in improving that article.
Moi
I must repeat myself, the Haitian Revolution and the Imperialism of the French Revolution are silenced in the lead and elsewhere, for example, in "Role of Ideology", "French Revolution Wars," and "Historiography", and they are precisely silenced by Robinvp11 for the lead and by Aemilius Adolphin for "Role of Ideology" and "Historiography".
warshy
I for one, am behind all the edits done here on this issue by Robinvp11 and by Aemilius Adolphin. The issue is already described and summarized enough for this page in the "colonies" section. You can also help improve the other article as Adolphin is suggesting. Thank you,
Moi
Nowhere can you silence the Haitian Revolution and the imperialism of the French Revolution, neither in the lead, nor in "Role of ideology," nor in "French Revolution Wars," nor in "Historiography." The concealment of the Haitian Revolution and the imperialism of the French Revolution is a French POV.
On “Wikipedia:Neutral point of view” it says: “NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies... [...] This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.”
Silencing the Haitian Revolution and the imperialism of the French Revolution in the lead, in "Role of Ideology", in "French Revolution Wars," and in "Historiography" is to impose a French POV in these sections, and it is contrary to a “fundamental principle of Wikipedia”.
warshy
I think we disagree on the alleged "silencing," and on the alleged POV. In our opinion the issue is not being silenced, and the article is carefully following what all RS say on the subject. So, you have no support from your allegations, other that yourself, and no support for the POV issue in this article, I think, as a majority of other editors disagree with you. Thank you,
Moi
The article is made up of sections. You can’t have one section (“Slavery and the colonies”) that says one thing, and others (the lead, "Role of Ideology", "French Revolution Wars," and "Historiography") that says the opposite (implicitly, by silencing what you want to.)
Most visitors only read the lead and will not hear of the Haitian Revolution and the imperialist dimension of the French Revolution. They are going to ignore it, and that is what you, Robinvp11 and Aemilius Adolphin want.
There can be no “editor consensus” against a Neutral point of view.
History should not be the POV of the stronger (the French) against the weaker (The Haitians).
But, so far that is the case.
What Marlene Daut wrote for the past continues to be true: “the Haitian Revolution has been ‘silenced’ for the past two centuries in both scholarship and popular history.”
This continues to be true because the stronger (the French) and the weaker (The Haitians) remain the same, and in history, the stronger imposes its POV, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, since it is their interest to do so.
Robinvp11
I think you've been treated with great patience, given that so far all you've done is say exactly the same thing over and over again, whilst casting aspersions on any editor who disagrees with you.
There is no point responding to your criticisms when it looks like you don't even bother to read them. If you think you've been treated unfairly, ask for arbitration as I've now suggested on four separate occasions.