Talk:1898 French legislative election

Contradicting results

There are somewhat contradicting numbers. One map on FP even gives another figure for the goverment if i see it right: 3,593,398 votes. The seats from the maps have to be count by hand.

Party or alliance				ReP			FP			Groups
				Votes	%	Seats	Votes	%	Seats	Votes	%	Seats
	Socialists			791,148	9.76	57	791,148	10.32	37		–	37
	Radicals & Moderates		Radical Socialist	629,572	7.77	74	629,572	8.21	104		–	104
			Independent Radicals/GD	1,293,507	15.96	104	1,293,507	16.87	126		–	95
			Progressives/UP	3,262,725	40.25	254	3,262,725	42.55	333		–	283
		Total		5,185,804	63.97	432	5,185,804	67.62	563		–	482
	Right-wing		Rallies/Republican Independents			32	542,647	7.08	58		–	58
			Monarchists	887,759	10.95	44	887,759	11.58	–		–
			Miscellaneous right	250,101	3.09	10
			Christian democrats			0	61,868	0.81	–
			Nationalists/Anti-Jew			6	64,570	0.84	23		–	20
			Revisionist (Socialists)/National Defense			4	117,063	1.53	–		–	23
		Total		1,137,860	14.04	96	1,673,907	21.82	81		–	101
	Others			991,311	12.23	–	17,839	0.23	–
Total				8,106,123	100.00	585	7,668,698	100.00	681			620
Total votes				8,106,123	–
Registered voters/turnout				10,779,123	75.20
Source: Roi et Presidents, France Politique (votes), France Politique (seats), Parliamentary groups according to French Wiki

Braganza (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Just flagging that there are also discrepancies with the Roi-President source and the GeoElections external link in terms of total numbers of seats. Also, there are only 581 seats in the election table diagram. What's going on? WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 04:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Went back to look at contemporary sources and found two sources

1. Le Petit Journal (Parisian Newspaper) from May 24, 1898: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6146250/f1.item
2. New York Times from May 24, 1898: https://www.nytimes.com/sitemap/1898/05/24/

Both sources count 581 seats, with similar numbers for most parties as ReP. The differences are as follows:

1. 38 Rallies Counted in LPJ & NYT vs. 32 in ReP.
2. 10 Nationalists counted in LPJ & NYT vs. 6 in ReP.

IceWinds (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Additional Sources:

This October 1898 Academic work refers to 581 members: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25119079. Scaife, Walter B. "Legislative Elections in France." The North American Review 167, no. 503 (Oct. 1898): 465-472, 465.

If anybody here is not colorblind, you could review this election map from 1898: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84418200/f1.item.zoom IceWinds (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at the map and got the following numbers:

• 224 Republicans
• 104 Radicals
• 66 Radical-Socialists
• 63 Socialists
• 50 Conservatives
• 41 Rallies
• 10 Antisemites

Total of 558 seats, even less than ReP, though I might be slightly off in my count and there could potentially be some multi-candidate constituencies hiding in the map. Pave Paws (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

welp, here's some more sources

• The Argus, 25 May 1898 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/9835229 - 581 seats.
  • Ministerialists and 'Rallied' (former opponents of the Republic, who, under the advice of the Pope, gave it their support) — 291
  • Conservatives — 49
  • Radicals and Socialists — 211
  • Anti Semites — 20
  • Doubtful — 10
• The Right in France from the Third Republic to Vichy (Passmore, 2012) https://academic-oup-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/book/7430/chapter/152305592 (doesn't have full stats)
  • Ralliés — 38
  • Royalists — 41
  • Bonapartists — 12
  • Anti-Semites — 18
• Ideology and Experience: Anti-Semitism in France at the Time of the Dreyfus Affair (Wilson, 1984) https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.3828/liverpool/9780197100523.003.0008 (doesn't have full seats)
  • 22 anti-semites were elected (also states the names of all of them and what seat they represented), six of whom explicitly campaigned under the label of "anti-semite"/"anti-juif".
    • It mentions that there were probably more who campaigned under that platform but were not elected, acknowledging further research needs to be done on that topic.

Hopefully that's of some use to someone 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 18:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I found the NYT source https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1898/05/09/102561108.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0 and it reports something totally different than a lot of the results I am seeing on this page so far. Monarchists 27, MoReps 151, Radicals 94, Socialisrs 29 and concludes with "The Republicans have gained 9 seats" I would also like to add this source https://www.jstor.org/stable/25119079 as it claims 581 seats I would also cite this article https://www.jstor.org/stable/2164539 where it shows that the 22 antisemites considered themselves a party (and this article is HIGHLY cited in academic sources such as Cornell and Columbia and Stanford all within the last ten years) 35.2.147.173 (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

maybe France Politique had a typo and its 233 seats for the Progressives? Braganza (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

(Pinging @Number 57, WeifengYang, Incognito melon, and Vladimir Budinski: this discussion may be relevant based on the edit history of the article in the last year.) WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 04:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Given there are contemporary sources I believe we should refer to those as opposed to second hand sources. However, I am not that familiar with french political history so I can't say which is more reliable. Hopefully one of the other editors will be able to shed more light in that regard, and if a consesus is reached on the most reliable source then the article should be changed as necessary to reflect that. If I can be of any more assistance please let me know! Best regards, Incognito melon (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if Aréat may be of assistance. Cheers, Number 57 08:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The current infobox has the seat count adding up to 589. It also contradicts the table in the article. Perathian (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the version that matches the Roi et President source. It would be helpful if users like DM1256 could join the discussion rather than blindly revert nonsense results back intot he article. Cheers, Number 57 08:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57 I believe there is an issue in the fact of the parties and not just the numbers. The Drefus split was major and the previous alliances are important to add in the infobox (Sources which talk about the split: Guardian, Wilson, Passmore). I believe there are enough sources and consensus to include these factions, regardless of disagreements over the exact electoral figures. This is also the case for further elections. Quinby (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've no problem with anything being added, as long as it matches the sources and the article is internally consistent. The last version restored had the infobox claiming there were 585 seats (but the figures listed totalled 589), the results table showing 585 and the parliamentary diagram 581. Cheers, Number 57 09:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57 I believe this is because the article has gained traction online, and people don't understand the reverts. If you were to change it back to the Drefusards/Anti-Dreyfusards/Antisemitic League infobox with the numbers which have been generally agreed upon here, then I do not believe there will be any further problems. Quinby (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if there are two versions of the results, it could be worth going with the more academic-based one, then adding an efn note with the alternative results in the infobox Quinby (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What figures are you proposing to include in the infobox for the Drefusards/Anti-Dreyfusards/Antisemitic League (and where are they sourced from) – can you do an example of it on the talk page? Cheers, Number 57 09:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57 I am not well versed in historical French elections, I just wanted to move the conversation away from arguing about specific numbers as the main point of contention seems to be the layout of the alliances & infobox. I would reccomend that we look at the French wikipedia's numbers and work from there. In the Drefusard/Anti-Dreyfusard groupings, it seems like they were not concrete at the time of the election, but manifested to be what has already been in place. Quinby (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the first step would be for someone to draft a proposed infobox on the talk page for discussion and review, and then it can be added to the article when we are happy that it is accurate and meets WP:V. One of my concerns here is that the figures are WP:OR. Looking back through the article's history, it started off accurately reflecting the sources, but then was gradually changed... Cheers, Number 57 10:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57 This is not mine to do, if you have found where it reflects the source with the agreed alliances then it would be great if you could do a proposal based on that. Especially as you have changed several elections on the same point, as I believe there is strong consensus to have the more detailed alliances. Quinby (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely happy to do it if someone can provide a source with the alliances. Unless I'm missing something, as it stands, all of the ones provided seem to be at the grouping level (and also don't break out the Antisemitic League as an individual party)? Cheers, Number 57 11:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Quinnnnnby, as several other source quickly found from french version of the article also show the results differently (and counting to 581). After election splits and results from are better discussed in the article itself, not the info box

http://geoelections.free.fr/France/histoire/1898L_elus.htm

With the inconsistencies pointed out from contemporary sources I believe we should edit the sourcing and numbers to be consistent with their numbers and ignore where ReP has inconsistencies with them LadislavLouka (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57 @Quinnnnnby I think this is a natural compromise, but just a suggestion for now. Everything is sourced from the articles of the leaders/parties on fr.wiki for their alignment in regards to the Dreyfus affair while seat totals are sourced from Roi et Presidents, which seems to be the most agreed upon source for seat totals. Pave Paws (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how to go about representing the other parties here (namely the Ralliés, Radical Socialists) but I suppose they can be appended under the "party" row and above the "alliance" row as a collapsible list. Pave Paws (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

1898 French legislative election

8–22 May 1898
All 585 seats to the Chamber of Deputies 293 seats needed for a majority
Turnout	75.2%
First party Second party   Leader Jules Méline Henri Brisson Party Progressive Republicans Independent Radicals Alliance Anti-Dreyfusards Dreyfusards Seats won 254 104   Third party Fourth party   Leader Jules Guesde Albert de Mun Party Socialists Monarchists Alliance Dreyfusards Anti-Dreyfusards Seats won 57 44
Prime Minister before election Jules Méline Democratic Union Elected Prime Minister Henri Brisson Radical Left

Are you saying the position on Dreyfus affair is sourced from fr.wiki, or from sources on fr.wiki? Can you copy the sources here? Also, are "Socialists" and the French Workers' Party actually the same thing? Or was "Socialist" a wider designation that included other parties/socialist independents? The infobox and results table really should have the same listing, so we would have a source saying the Workers' Party won 57 seats. Also, why are Radical Socialists (the third-largest group) excluded? Final point – the leaders' seat function shouldn't be included (per infobox guidance that says only to include it where the detail is in the article, which it isn't here). Cheers, Number 57 12:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The positions on the Dreyfus affair were sourced from fr.wiki itself after a short skimming w/ machine translation. I did spot a few sources named:

• For Méline
• For de Mun

They are many more sources for de Mun and only one for Méline. None for Brisson and Guesde.

As for the second question, the French Workers' Party was the party to which Guesde belonged and, as far as I know, was the primary exponent of French political socialism at this time. I think it would be best to just change it to "Socialists" for the sake of consistency with the others though, since I believe Independent Socialists are counted in ReP.

I've removed the leader's seat row from the infobox, thank you for letting me know. Pave Paws (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response/updates. Given the amount of misinformation this series of article has suffered, I think everything really needs to be sourced. Another consideration – were the party leaders' views reflective of their parties' positions? Given the information is being presented as the parties belonging to the alliances, it would be preferable to have sources stating the party positions if possible. Cheers, Number 57 12:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the hardest question to answer for this case. The Progressive Republicans themselves were fraying over the Dreyfus question, with a separate bloc known as the "Progressive Union" adopting a pro-Dreyfus position in opposition to Méline's anti-Dreyfusism. Unfortunately, ReP makes no distinction, and France-Politique is not reliable. There were also divisions between socialists over the Dreyfus affair.

I think it is still important to demarcate who are Dreyfusards and who are anti-Dreyfusards with parties listed under each, but the division among the listed "parties" makes this very complicated.

I think this could be worked around by returning to the old infobox where Méline and Brisson are leading Dreyfusards and anti-Dreyfusards, but there are even fewer sources showing clear affiliations between the parties to make that workable. For now, we could

• Omit the Dreyfusard/Anti-Dreyfusard distinction, displaying only party affiliation. This would be the most standard approach, and the Dreyfus affair is mentioned in the article body anyway. This is basically the status quo with a little expansion.
• or, Omit party affiliation, displaying only the Dreyfusard/Anti-Dreyfusard distinction in the infobox without displaying seat totals, and displaying these totals in the Results box instead for each individual party
• or, Some secret third option.

I think the second option would be a good compromise, even if it would be fairly unorthodox (though I notice the same approach was taken for the 1906 article's infobox). Pave Paws (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Is option 2 simply listing Méline and Brisson and their position on the Dreyfus affair (assuming a source can be found for Brisson)? I think that would look a bit odd and wouldn't be reflective of the article. Of those three options, #1 sounds the most sensible for the meantime (and it might be better to convert to this infobox style and list all the parties rather than just some of them). Happy for a secret option to be developed though! Cheers, Number 57 12:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm still keen on keeping the Dreyfusard/Anti-Dreyfusard alliances in the infobox to maintain a good consensus and to better connect the infobox to the article body, but in lieu of proper sources (I imagine the Passmore source would be good, but I don't have access to it) I think this might be the most acceptable approach for now. As far the other infobox style, I can see it working well here and on other early Third Republic election articles, with the only problem I can see being the lack of named leaders for all of the parties. Méline and Brisson are the biggest figures here AFAIK so it would make sense to keep the current infobox style, as it better illustrates that, and having gaps between the leaders on the other style would look somewhat odd as well. Pave Paws (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about the election, but here is a very detailled source which may be useful to you. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I think it might be best to throw in the towel and go with what sources are both most complete and most consistent/congruent with other sources. Part of the reason why there are such massive discrepancies is due to the difficulty in discerning who is part of which parliamentary grouping, since party politics wasn't really a thing yet and members of parliament were essentially independent in their actions. ReP's seat figures + France-Politique's vote figures, which are the same as ReP's, might be the best solution. There is also @Aréat's source, which is fantastic and roughly consistent with the ReP/France-Politique vote figures, though it unfortunately only covers Metropolitan France. Pave Paws (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

i agree Braganza (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Revert changes by Number 57

I think he’s removed too many details and made the page an eyesore. Posting it here to discuss what other people think 2.98.246.224 (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The previous version of the article had incorrect information that was inconsistent even with other parts of the page (for instance, the infobox showing Anti-Dreyfusards with a majority when in reality Dreyfusards had a majority). The larger issue here is that "Dreyfusard", "Anti-Dreyfusard", and "Anti-Semitic League" weren't the actual party names, but the names applied after the fact as informal political coalitions, and the precise numbers are not recorded in the article's sources. Perathian (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that instead of correcting the corresponding material, it was removed altogether. As such now the article went from misinformative to uninformative. If you were to instead recreate the previous in place images but with the correct information, I doubt anyone would find it objectionable. N7o2h3 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with reverting. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Brigading from Twitter

It appears that this article and other similar French legislative election articles from the period are seeing brigading due to a tweet presenting a one sided perspective on the debate and engaging in targeted harassment towards an admin here. The twitter thread seems to be ignoring the issue at stake about accurate sourcing for informal coalition numbers. Wikipedia does not allow original research, and we do not prioritize aesthetic appeal over verifiability. Perathian (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't disagree but targeted harassment is overstating the point Genabab (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

YouTube video about the edit war on this page

"The Wikipedia Elections Edit War", YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVIl_DJl5NU . Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Concerning Jack4576 (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Really sad to see so many negative comments on Number57 from people who just watch a video and suddenly are convinced he's a vandal, when he's among the users who contribute the most to ensure there's data to as much election as possible. Go to the pre-1980 election pages of any country and more often than not the data will be there thanks to him.--Aréat (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The video doesn't seem to depict them as a vandal. The people who have negative comments seem to come from the mentioned Twitter thread. However, it does depict him in a more negative light in another but election-related scene.

It does talk about Aréat's source and a couple other secondaries from comprehensive historian collections though, which apparently haven't been used due to excluding non-metropolitan voters, which the video argues should be used due to being at least better than nothing. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The source is amazingly detailed but has one major flaw that hinders its use - it doesn't have seat figures. And using that for votes and another for seats would be SYNTH unless it could be shown they properly match up (which I'm not sure they do?). Number 57 02:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll admit that I found out about this article from that video (and opted to contribute constructively), but it looks like some IP rando has already had a dramatic reaction to it. Might be worth considering temporary semi-protection for this page or something before things get too out of hand. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 01:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The video is quality content and funny. NojRants know that 19th elections were wholly different. Instead of parties, most candidates were member of political alliances. Tom Igodt (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that we should be completely dismissive of the views of someone on the internet just because they provide an outsider perspective on Wikipedia. The video specifically called for nobody to harass anyone or this issue to be taken up by their viewers. Not that I completely agree with everything it says, but just because its a critique done off-wiki doesn't mean its automatically wrong. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There are better sources for this article.

There are better sources for this article that are more relieble, such as this book or this website 2A05:4F46:705:3B00:E0E7:F813:C2F4:7BFA (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It depends how you define 'better'. The Nohlen book only gives rounded vote figures (for example 3,248,000 votes for the Moderate Republicans, 1,400,000 for the Radicals etc), while the website mentioned only gives vote totals, not seat figures, so can't really be used unless we had separate tables for vote figures and seat totals. Cheers, Number 57 18:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)