Talk:Maximilien Robespierre/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Restructuring and Organizing

I will attempt to change the structure of the article to make it more organized and direct. This includes changing the way the references are presented into a footnotes + works cited structure. I also plan on collating all the biographical information into a biography section, and adding a Bibliography and Works about sections following the template of the French version of this article. If you think of any ways you can help me improve this article please let me know. --Aocho032 (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

I appreciate that you are planning to clean up and organize this article. This is the kind of detailed work that most people don't want to do but will greatly improve the article once its done. Your draft does well by distinguishing the difference between the references and works cited utilized in the article. It is crucial that you keep references so that the reader can easily find the source of specific information. I like that you looked at the French version of the article for a format for your article, since our topics are originally French. I too looked at the French version of my topic and gathered some useful ideas for edits I can make. I don't personally think that adding the biography section is necessary because it is just a heading and doesn't add anything to the article.

Your other article, "Downfall of Robespierre," is also coming along well. It is an important series of events that deserves a separate, in-depth wikipedia page. The lead section gives a good overview of the topic. I like that you are going to organize the information by days in chronological order. However, there are multiple grammar mistakes throughout the article that you should address. For example, the first sentence in the lead section should be changed to "The Downfall of Robespierre is the name for a series of events, beginning with Maximillien Robespierre's address to the National Convention on 8 Thermidor Year II (July 26, 1794), and ending with his arrest and execution on 10 Thermidor Year II (July 26, 1794)." Hopefully this is helpful advice. Good luck. IMZ Editor (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

There is already an article 9 Thermidor (Fall of Robespierre) which appears to cover much of this.Mccapra (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I see the former article 'Thermidorian reaction' now redirects to 9 Thermidor Mccapra (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Abolition of Slavery

Great Error : it is not in April 1794 but in April 1793 that he attacks slavery of Black men. In 1793 he discussed about projects of constitution. See French Wikipedia "Robespierre" La question coloniale" and Jean-Daniel Piquet L'émancipation des Noirs dans la révolution francaise 1789-1795 Paris Karthala 2002.

Jean-Daniel Piquet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.67.234.193 (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

ENGVAR

This early revision of the article appears to be in British English. Per MOS:RETAIN this should not have been changed without good reason. --John (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I've restored British English per policy. --John (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Execution of Louis XVI

I've made a number of edits and additions to the sections on Robespierre's opposition to War and on the execution of the king, and have added a section concerning the National Convention. My principle goal is to add historical context (provided in much greater detail by linked wiki pages), and to make more clear Robespierre's political position on major events of the Revolution. My changes will certainly be insufficient in some ways and so I hope all who can will contribute, while being meticulous in sourcing. Regarding the section on the execution of the king, I've provided two long quotes because I wasn't sure how to edit these any more without eliminating critical information. I believe the extended treatment is justified given Robespierre's previous opposition to the death penalty, given the momentous event of the King's execution, and given the terror that would follow. The section deserves more material if anybody can provide it. Darouet (talk) 3:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have difficulty understanding the last paragraph of this section. Firstly, second sentence: "the call for a referendum" - what referendum? There is no mention that I can find in the previous few paras. Secondly: "was defeated by 424 votes to 287, which was led by Robespierre", This is ambiguous - does it mean that "the call for a referendum" was lead by Robespierre, or does it mean that the defeat was led by Robespierre? Given that Robespierre is said to be in favour of execution, is it intended to mean something like "On 15 January, the call for a referendum to determine the King's fate was opposed by Robespierre and defeated by 424 votes to 287."Baska436 (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

PARAGRAPH FROM KIM JONG-UN MISTAKENLY PASTED HERE

I am deleting the following paragraph as it seems that someone has cut/paste it from the wiki article on Kim Jung-In:

Later, it was reported that Robspierre attended the Liebefeld Steinhölzli school in Köniz near Bern under the name "Pak-un" or "Un-pak" from 1998 until 2000 as the son of an employee of the North Korean embassy in Bern. Authorities of Köniz confirmed that a student from North Korea, registered as the son of a member of the embassy, attended the school from August 1998 until the autumn of 2000, but were unable to give details about his identity. Pak-un first attended a special class for foreign-language children and later attended the regular classes of the 6th, 7th, 8th, and part of the final 9th year, leaving the school abruptly in the autumn of 2000. He was described as a well-integrated and ambitious student who liked to play basketball, his grades and attendance rating are reported to have been poor. The ambassador of North Korea in Switzerland, Ri Chol, had a close relationship with him and acted as a mentor. One of Pak-un's classmates told reporters that he had told him that he was the son of the leader of North Korea. According to some reports, Jong-un was described by classmates as a shy child who was awkward with girls and indifferent to political issues, but who distinguished himself in sports and had a fascination with the American National Basketball Association and Michael Jordan. One friend claimed that he had been shown pictures of Pak-un with Kobe Bryant and Toni Kukoč.

Tapalmer99 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

````

Claims of Irish ancestry

This seems to have started with John Gideon Milingen's Recollections of Republican France from 1790 to 1801 (1848), in which he claims he had met Robespierre, who told him this. However, Milingen says Robespierre was talking about his mother's family, i.e. the Carraults (conceivably a variant of Carroll) – not the Robespierres. There are questions about the veracity of Milingen's reminiscences, though. He was born in 1782, and so was only a child during the Revolution, and he wrote up his memoirs over 50 years later, after the publication of Carlyle's The French Revolution, which did so much to colour English-language coverage of the period and characters. Silverwhistle (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Execution

Small nit to pick under the "Execution" heading: one does not "staunch" bleeding; one does, however, "stanch" bleeding.

151.207.250.61 (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)raabe

As noted, this article is in British English, and "staunch" is correct for us. Silverwhistle (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Henriette Robespierre

It's not clear from the available sources whether Henriette was actually a nun. She and Charlotte were both at the Manarres Convent in Tournai as students: it was, effectively, a finishing school for young ladies. I've not seen any clear grounds for the claim she had taken the veil. Silverwhistle (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2018

103.238.106.40 (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Error on Page

Born Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre 6 May 1758

Early life

He married Jacqueline Marguerite Carrault, the daughter of a brewer, on 2 January 1758.

3 months before he was born!

86.130.120.191 (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Bob Thomas

Yes, his father married his mother 4 months before he was born... and ? Eleventh1 (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

External links

A few days ago KokoPhantom deleted most of the links in this section classified as linkfarm. The reason I don't understand. It seems anti-academic too me. I opened all the links to check its content. I found some interesting information in works on or by Robespierre which I had not seen before (and many I will never be able to read). So I reverted two links that were useful to me. Today he deleted the interesting links - with many authors that critized Robespierre - again. I don't think it is right. He left only one which is pro-Robespierre and connected with the French communist party? This section became unbalanced by his action. It needs at least one more link. Most of the text I did not understand or appeared redundant to me one can still see when editing. Until now not many people rejected what I added here, so one day I could delete this old stuff, allright? Another problem is the number of quotes. Some are long, and repeat what is already in the text. (One was even double. Were they used to cover up the lack of factual information in the sections?) Which one's are redundant? Does someone else have an opinion? Taksen (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you want to retain there. I took a closer look and agree that the website you complain about is actually without value so I've removed it. The online book is already in References, so that just leaves the general searches like Internet Archive. I encourage you to read the policies WP:EL, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and yeah WP:LINKFARM. KokoPhantom (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not exited about your solution, and three links can't be called a link farm, because "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article." Please put them back. Besides I checked your history, you never seem to add something substantial, but you deleted a lot. Here you added some remarks, but did not look for a better reference. Why is that? How good is your French so that you could be more helpful? Taksen (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I won't respond to your personal attacks. And no, I won't restore those links. You need to read policies deeper than the first paragraph to actually know what they mean. KokoPhantom (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not know there was a deeper meaning too. In my point of view you are unacademic, probably a bureaucrat that forced his way in. There is not a rule that says what I don't understand is unnecessary! You're certainly not the expert we need here. Robespierre is one of the biggest mysteries of the 18th century and you will not solve it. Besides I have doubts about your knowledge of French, please stay away. There must be tons of articles were you can do you what you think you need you do.Taksen (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, if you want me to respond, goading works. Yes, I do what I do: I'm a cleaner. Among other tasks, I remove bad links and shitty references according to policies. I don't need to know French to do what I do on English Wikipedia. As for you: you have a ludicrously high opinion of your own intellect. You continuously and unilaterally erase the work of countless contributors according to your own whims. You are incapable of making a proper citation, and you cannot write a single paragraph without errors in spelling or grammar. Other people fix your mistakes but I don't know that they should. If your English reading comprehension is as bad as your English writing, it really casts serious doubt on your ability to understand the contributions of other editors, not to mention English historical sources. KokoPhantom (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

grain

According to Courtois the revolutionary government under Robespierre refused to accept an enourmous amout of grain from the US to France around 1793 and 1794, worth millions. If someone knows more or finds a reference please contribute to the article.Taksen (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how far Courtois can be considered a reliable source. The following may be relevant 1. This source indicates that a grain convoy did indeed sail to France from the USA, was intercepted by the English, but reached Brest in safety. Mccapra (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I will read them. Courtois is not more or less reliable than any other member of the Committees. One has to check what he wrote and did. For me he was very helpful as I finally discovered who was responsible for the will of Marie-Antoinette; he mentioned the names of his co-coup players, did not mention Fouché; he made clear that their attack had to do with Robespierre who considered himself as the "supreme being"; their plans to arrest Dumas, the Duplays, Nicolas; how the arrested managed to get to the town-hall, etc. One has to study Robespierre's opponents to find more details and it worked out well.Taksen (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Everyone who survived Thermidor had an agenda to distance themselves as far as possible from the Terror, a Courtois was one of the conspirators who brought Robespierre down, so he was anything but dispassionate. Mccapra (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The story is explained here: French_ship_Vengeur_du_Peuple#Glorious_First_of_JuneTaksen (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Incumbent

Is he still the president of the Jacobin Club? Grassynoel (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC) ~

solved.Taksen (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Early politics

Likewise, for this section, some suggestions to tighten it up and keep it focused on MR himself:

Para 2: Suggest cutting ‘(In June 1794 Carnot, his colleague on the Committee of Public Safety, would describe Robespierre and Saint-Just as a "ridiculous dictators".[24])’ This is an aside rather a substantive piece of information.

I don't agree, if I leave out this sentence, the one before becomes meaningless. Robespierre probably met hundreds of people in 1787. His acquaintance with Carnot is essential.

Para 3: Suggest cutting ‘Late February 1789 France was in a pressing crisis due to its desire for a new constitution, according to Gouverneur Morris.[25]’ This is another piece of commentary on the general situation rather than info about Robespierre.

Morris had interesting remarks on the revolution. He can mentioned.

Para 4: Suggest cutting ‘When the deputies arrived at Versailles they were presented to the King and listened to Jacques Necker's three-hour-long speech about financial health, constitutional monarchy, and institutional and political reforms.[28] They were informed that all voting would be "by power" not "by head", so their double representation was to be meaningless. They refused this and proceeded to meet separately.’ This info can be readily found in related articles and doesn’t need to be included in a bio of Robespierre.

it may be redudant, but if I leave out these explanations, the sequence of events becomes illogical.

Para 4: ‘As one of the few he supported Maillard after the Women's March on Versailles.[31]’ This should perhaps read ‘He was one of the few who supported Maillard after the Women's March on Versailles.[31]’ (?) However I think this is probably excessive detail, and there’s no context for who Maillard was, so I’d suggest cutting the sentence.

I don't understand the difference. This sentence is from Moore. The context can be found in the article on Maillard. It might be one of the few moments where Robespierre defended women.

Para 5. Personally I find phrases like ‘according to X’ distracting in an article text so I’d suggest removing the explicit ref to Malcolm Crook and just leaving his name in the footnote. This would make the ref consistent with others in the article.

Crook was not a historian, but a political scientist, an expert an French elections. He can be mentioned too.

Thanks Mccapra (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

First, many thanks to Taksen for his sustained and committed work on this article. I have some suggestions for the lead section and would welcome views on them.

I’m suggesting a number of text cuts to give us a more succinct and less discursive lead section.

1. Lead para 1 Cut ‘Robespierre played an important role after the Storming of the Tuileries, which led to the establishment of the First French Republic on 22 September 1792.’

Two important events that can be mentioned, and inform the reader about the context. Both claims are true, but I changed the sentence with a reference to Cobban.

I added more context and sometimes even without a reference. What will happen to "Mid July two new masse graves were dug at Picpus Cemetery in the impermeable ground." It is not about Robespierre. That decision was probably made in the Commune, but it explains the situation in Paris in July 1794. According to the rules of Wikipedia it could be deleted. As it is not about Robespierre I did not make a reference. I gave enough details to Google, if someone wants to know more.

It will be hard or impossible to understand Robespierre if we don't look at the context, his friends and enemies and the events in the Assembly or Convention.Taksen (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Someone remarked that a biography on Robespierre will become automatically a history on the French Revolution. It will be a mistake to publish an article on Robespierre without context.

2. Lead para 2 Remove the word ‘disputed’ as this is adequately covered in lead para 3 sentence 1. (See 5. below)

I changed the sentence a bit

3. Lead para 2 Cut ‘When France threatened to fall apart in the summer of 1793, the republic was severely centralized to become "one and indivisible". ‘ This is background, not about Robespierre, and not really necessary in a lead section.

If I leave out this sentence, it will disturb the chronology and I will forced to rewrite the whole paragraph.

4. Lead para 2 Cut ‘As part of his attempts to use extreme measures to control political activity in France, Robespierre moved against his former friends, the more moderate Danton, and Desmoulins, who were executed in April 1794.’ The explanation in the previous sentence is sufficient.

This sentence explains the choice Robespierre made between virtue and friendship. Something to keep in mind. He chose terror. Within a few weeks Robespierre was confronted with revenge.

5. Lead para 3. Suggest moving the first sentence up to make it the final sentence in lead para 1 and deleting the rest as unnecessary.

If I move this sentence, it will disturb the chronology. This interesting remark by Hervé explains the controversy around Robespierre. It should stay were it is.Taksen (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mccapra (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Jacobin Club

At the end of para 3 in this section there’s a sentence ‘In July 1791 three battalions of volunteers could be formed in Paris.’ that doesn’t make any sense on its own. Mccapra (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I know, because I hid the sentence before. In between I hid the whole paragraph until I know how to explain this in a proper way. The information comes from:

[1]

On 15 June 1791 the Constituante was very busy. On the day before Le Chapelier Law 1791 limited the right of petition and prohibited associations of farmers and workers. (Measures against corporate bodies, etc.) A law preventing them from grouping or defend themselves. "No one is allowed to suggest to the citizens an intermediary interest, to separate them from the community by a spirit of corporation." I also found this, the original is in French.[2]

"The authors, leaders and instigators who have caused, drafted, or presided over, will be cited before the tribunal of police at the request of the public prosecutor of the Commune, each sentenced to five-hundred-pound fine and suspended for one year from the exercise of their rights as active citizens, and the entry in the primary assemblies".

The law enraged the Sans-culottes (and Robespierre?) who called for an end to the Constituent Assembly. Creating more militias to defend their rights (not only their wages) seems to have been the reaction. There is not much evidence left supposedly because of Article 2: "They may not appoint or president, or secretaries, or trustees, to keep records, take orders, or deliberations, form of the regulations" in the matter. Taksen (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Revert by BobKawanaka

I looked at your profile, which has nothing interesting, your talkpage, which does not look very promising, and your contributions. Nothing that tells me you are some kind of expert on the French Revolution. You deleted details that are more precise, and comments that help me to keep track and improve this article. What is your goal? What can I expect next? If you are trying to become a contributor here, why did not you improved the article? As you were vandalizing the article, I suggest you ought to be blocked by some one.Taksen (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Where can I find the rule that Wikipedia is not to place to add "?" ... It may exist, but I would not be surprised it was invented by you. Most of all, Robespierre is not the easiest topic. Even after 225 years of research some details on Robespierre are problematic, perhaps for ever? Taksen (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Arrest

The ‘Arrest’ section contains two sentences that don’t really make sense. ‘What had happened was not very clear to the officers of the militias; either the Convention was closed down or the Paris Commune.[295] Nobody explained anything.[296]‘

This might mean “The officers of the militias were uncertain what was happening; apparently either the Convention or the Paris Commune [had ceased to function?] [needed to be shut down?] but no reliable information could be obtained.’ It might mean something else, but without looking at the sources, I’m not sure. Mccapra (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Another sentence in this section that doesn’t make sense: ‘Louis Blanc mentioned a secret order by the insurrectionary Commune which sent municipals to the jailors.[306]’ ‘sent municipals to the jailers’ needs rewording. Mccapra (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• I hope it is more clear now.Taksen (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man

User:The Rambling Man seems to be interested in sports and Scotland. I cannot except/answer all his questions on Robespierre and the French Revolution on the day before this article will get a lot of attention. If I don't trust something I would check on internet if it is true. If I knew better I would improve the article. All the information he has not heard off is unreliable? This looks more like sabotage and is not very helpful as he did not add any interesting detail. This page was not written for panick causing and lazy people like him.Taksen (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGF, thank you. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comparison with Wikipédia (FR)

I think it would be better to bring this article closer to the Wikipédia entry in French, and to update the historiography. There is no real engagement with post-2011 scholarship and the dismantling of the mythology: McPhee, Leuwers, Bélissa and Bosc, Martin. Silverwhistle (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If you like to see some recent French historians, c.q. neo-Marxists (?), why don't you do it yourself? P.S. Leuwers I mentioned already several times.Taksen (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia is not very impressive, of course the article on Robespierre has a star.Taksen (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC) It mentions only a few authors who wrote in English, like Coleridge and just one in German. Very French.

Bélissa and Bosc are only mentioned twice on the French Wikipedia article. Their book has 557 pages and there just one reference to them, not to the book but to an article.

Martin usually writes about the War in the Vendée. That is very difficult topic if you are not French. No, thank you.Taksen (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If there is one author that stands out, it must be Gérard Walter.

I was referring to Martin's Robespierre: la fabrication d'un monstre. Silverwhistle (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Is that what you intended, copy and paste from the French Wikipédia, without the references. I expected something more intelligent.Taksen (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The section External links looks unbalanced to me, not intended for the average visitor, too intellectual. Although I never saw Leuwers speaking and I will watch it a high school kid will not think these videos are interesting, french speaking authors, discussing an hour and a half. The movie by Heffron should go back on top, as that is what most people will understand. I cannot believe French government or all the others that participated will object this movie is mentioned on Wikipedia. Your fear, seems an US-based fear, a country full with lawyers. I think every school kid or student interested in the French Revolution should watch that movie

• La Révolution française (film) by Richard T. Heffron: The French Revolution — Part 2 — English subtitles

Am not remotely US. The film falls under EU copyright rules. It is also a fictionalised narrative, reflecting the Furet-influenced version of the bicentenary and is now very dated in its approach. You patronise readers with your assumptions. Silverwhistle (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Physionotrace

The Versailles drawing is almost certainly the physionotrace 'grand trait' by Fouquet, engraved by Chrétien (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maximilien_Robespierre_Physionotrace_engraving_by_Fouquet_and_Chr%C3%A9tien_1792.jpg, published in Hippolyte Buffenoir, Les portraits de Robespierre (Paris, 1910)). It is the mirror-image of the engraving, and close examination shows the profile is drawn in a single line, as is common with physionotraces. The tinted paper, dimensions & c match Fouquet's other grands traits: the signature in this case has probably been cropped during framing. I have been in touch with the museum (their website is not up to date on this), also in correspondence with Nathalie Lemoine-Bouchard. I am an art historian and historian and have lectured on physionotraces and Robespierre's portraiture at the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Arras. See also Rodama, http://rodama1789.blogspot.com/2017/09/checklist-of-robespierre-portraits-set-2.html and http://rodama1789.blogspot.com/2017/09/checklist-of-robespierre-portraits-set-3.html Silverwhistle (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not surprised their website is not up to date, hahaha. About Fouquet almost nothing is known, it is not interesting to start an article on him, perhaps on the French Wikipedia, so you may get some help from local historians? I can see this one is a physionotrace, as it round and was meant to be published in large edition. The drawing that was used for the physionotrace is more interesting than the physionotrace itself, but why didn't you change the reference, or added both pictures? There is also confusion as some people think a drawing of a profile can be called a physionotrace.Taksen (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC) I assume first there was this drawing, then Chrétien used his machine to make the physionotrace. I suppose Fouquet did not use the machine to make the drawing. Taksen (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC) The sources are confusing. The sitter climbed into a wooden frame (1.75m high x 6.5m wide), sat and turned to the side to pose against a dark background. With the chin supported nothing moved, and with the head still and the profile exposed, the resemblance could be captured. A life-size drawing was available on the spot. One week later the sitter received an etched plate and twelve little prints. Or is it the machine produced engraved profiles?

When it comes to technique the German Wikipedia is the best. The moving element of a pantograph linkage formed from parallelograms (in the drawing on the top left) was connected to a long thread (not visible in the drawing) that led into the background of the room and with which the profile contour of the person sitting was traced. The pantograph transferred this contour line to a paper stretched underneath. During the session, which lasted only a few minutes, the artist completed the internal drawing of the portrait by hand, so that initially a life-size representation emerged, as can be seen in the drawing. With the help of a second, scaling down pantograph, the basic features of the portrait were later transferred from this sheet in the form of dotted lines to a copper plate that had previously been prepared by etching. This printing plate was made using an etching technique , mostly combined with aquatint, completed.

Please rewrite

This article is either poorly written, incredibly poorly translated, or both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:87:C480:DD20:5862:57C1:1D46:D82A (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but it does not seem to bother many other readers. You don't like my details and view. I think I know who you are, from St. Andrews.Taksen (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A good example of the poverty of this article is the sentence on Condorcet in the second paragraph. It is like a sidewalk stone grabbing your toe and making you stumble forward. You look back and wonder what was that. Sadly, this topic is too vast for me to be of service to improve it. --Richard W. Pointer (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see what is wrong with the sentence on Condorcet. Condorcet and Israel consider the French Revolution as a religion, which is an interesting point of view. I assume it is not my English but their conclusion that made you wonder. Your alias is suspicious.

Robespierre is one of the most complicated persons in history to deal with, just like Machiavelli. I assume there are enough interesting details in this article. Did you read the article on the French Revolution? Is it better?

I am Dutch, I can't help my English is not much better and for a year and half there have not been many Wikipedians who like to improve this article. My conclusion is that there are no experts on the English Wikipedia on Robespierre.

The comment by Condorcet is absolutely not relevant to the lead section of a bio on Robespierre. Whether it is an interesting point of view or not, this us the wrong place for it. Mccapra (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Condorcet, a contemporary, can be regarded as an expert on Robespierre. Also John Moore was an eyewitness. An article needs some dynamite.Taksen (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

: At least I can read an article written in French.Taksen (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Your comment doesn’t really make sense. If Condorcet expressed views on Robespierre they would be relevant for this article, though not necessarily in the lede. This remark about the revolution is just randomly dropped in. Mccapra (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Gardes Francaises

A question about the meaning of the text around refs 52-54: “ The Gardes Françaises were admitted and supported to elect "new chefs".[53] Discussing the matter Robespierre defended the citizens who had no access to it.[54][55]”

• what does ‘the Gardes Francaises were admitted’ mean? I don’t have access to the source so can’t see the context, but on its own, it doesn’t make sense.

I have to check my pdf's, something went wrong with the reference.

• what does it mean that ‘Robespierre defended the citizens who had no access to it’? Defended them from what? Does ‘access to it’ mean that these citizens were prevented from joining the Gardes? If so, why? This isn’t at all clear as it stands. Also, refs 54 and 55 don’t help because they don’t seem to make any mention of the topic. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they were prevented from joining the National Guard, and Robespierre saw the people who had stormed the Bastille with pikes and arms as useful. Unfortunately there is limited information on his first speech.Taksen (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Megalomania

Dear 2600:6C50:4D00:1547:907D:9167:A37A:A74D. Thanks for improving the style. I am not sure everything you wrote is true; some looks redundant or even questionable. You put everything in the lead, which is suspicious. It is a pity you did not add a single reference. Your improvements now look like a personal opinion. Taksen (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"Downfall" section needs attention

The "Downfall" section contains confusing and overly-specific details that require background knowledge concerning the French Revolution. Considering there is also a full article on the Downfall of Robespierre, this level of detail is unnecessary and lacks necessary context.

--128.89.253.132 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are there too many details in this section and not in the others? The article on the Downfall is good, but I like to check myself what happened.Taksen (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

When I started to work on this article I began at the end, on 9 Thermidor. It became clear most authors skipped what happened in the afternoon (in the streets) and evening (their release from the prison, the gathering in the town hall, etc). It seemed to be a gap and neglected. I had to find out myself reading articles and books by French authors. Crucial seems to me Robespierre and the other prisoners were not released by a crowd but by the police. So the subsection Arrest is rather unusual and new for most of the readers. The same is true about the instigators of the coup; not many authors paid attention to them.

What happened in the Convention between noon and two o'clock one can read - no doubt - almost everywhere. Most authors then mention their execution on 10 Thermidor. I hope my details on the early morning, late afternoon, evening and after midnight will survive. I might change a few things, the wording for example, but as you know we become attached to what we find. All I can say, it needs time.Taksen (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

What is this question supposed to mean 'why are there too many details?'? Because whoever wrote it (I presume you) put them in? First off I should say thank you for your work on the article and section, but I agree with OP, I tried reading that section and found myself none the wiser about how Robespierre was brought down. The first paragraph doesn't seem relevant to how he was brought down. The next 3 or 4 paragraphs excessively quote deputies and mention their every little movement. This is unnecessary detail. eg this paragraph

"When called upon to name those whom he accused, he simply refused. Joseph Cambon flew to the rostrum. One man paralyzes the will of the National Convention".[426] His vehemence changed the course of the debate.[427] The Convention decided not to have the text printed, as Robespierre's speech had first to be submitted to the two committees. It contained matters sufficiently weighty that it needed to first be examined.[428] Robespierre was surprised that his speech would be sent to the very deputies he had intended to sue. "

This is all procedural data and doesn't need to be mentioned. The rest of the section goes on like that, excessive quotations and overly detailed movements and events. Another example:

"When Garnier witnessed Robespierre's inability to respond, he shouted, "The blood of Danton chokes him!"[444] Robespierre then finally regained his voice to reply with his one recorded statement of the morning, a demand to know why he was now being blamed for the other man's death: "Is it Danton you regret? ... Cowards! Why didn't you defend him?""

This reads like a thriller novel, not like a high-level encyclopedia article. I don't see why more than two or three important quotes are needed, and probably none at all are. - 37.166.140.230 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I have also gone through this talk page a little bit, you regularly use personal insults to try present yourself as superior to other editors. This is destructive to the Wikipedia project and does not help build the encyclopedia. Remember the Wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You were already told to review the policy of Wikipedia:Assume good faith but you seem to have ignored it. Wikipedia is a place to share reliable knowledge, it is not a place to try and prove that you are smarter than everyone else. - 22:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.166.140.230 (talk)

There isn't a rule that Wikipedia articles should be superficial. Secondly, I skipped the story about Marie Thérèse de Choiseul. Last, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (George Santayana). Byebye, Taksen (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

copyright

This morning I added a few very interesting details but they were deleted by ‎Diannaa, who has a strange attitude for a librarian.

• "After months of vehement disagreement and mutual recriminations, members of the Société des Amis des Noirs, Brissot most prominently, pushed the Legislative Assembly to grant all free people of colour equal citizenship rights." p. 79

"From the left, journalists such as Camille Desmoulins and politicians such as Condorcet and Grégoire, but above all Maximilien Robespierre, were keen to point out the incongruence between the universalistic promise of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and the restrictions placed on active citizenship, membership of the electoral assemblies, and the National Assembly." I'm sure I changed this sentence, but as it had a ref, she deleted it. p. 55

"If the February 1794 decree was at best a mix of idealism, (military) opportunism, and revolutionary symbolism, in the United States and the Dutch Republic the decision by and large met with aversion, fear, and disenchantment. p. 106-107

"A (second) Civil Commission led by Étienne Polverel and Léger-Félicité Sonthonax, two Jacobins who had earlier opposed slavery in writing, was instructed to enforce the controversial law and put down the slave insurrection with the help of 6,000 troops." I'm sure I changed this sentence, but as it had a ref, she deleted it.

"By late August 1793, Sonthonax and Polverel became convinced that only a general emancipation decree could win the black insurgent armies over to their side. First in the North, on August 29, and in the South and the West the following months, the Civil Commissioners decreed that all former slaves would enjoy ‘all the rights of French citizens’."" which I changed into: From August former slaves on Saint-Domingue would enjoy ‘all the rights of French citizens’, but without a reference. Does that mean it is better not to make a reference; otherwise she would have deleted it? That cannot be good practice. We have to pay tribute to the author, but I did not read Dubois, Avengers of the New World, pp. 162–164.

"Scapegoating Robespierre was a convenient strategy for political survival." Should I improve this sentence in my own words? From Chapter 5, p. 133,

"Merlin de Thionville started out by arguing that without the assistance of the Jacobins, Robespierre and his accomplices would never have been able to dominate French politics (and as a prominent ex-Montagnard he could know). From Chapter 5, p. 147. I did change this sentence, but as it has a ref, she deleted it. In other words it is more important to change the sentence, than adding a ref? That cannot be true.

When I checked that particular article on copyright, I found this:

https://brill.com/view/book/9789004416451/front-4.xml

This is an open access title distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC 4.0 license, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. Further information and the complete license text can be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Could someone tell me if she was mistaken or if I still don't understand the problem?Taksen (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

As not many people replied the problem seems rather difficult to understand for readers or most users. What happened here looks very fascist to me; the text is "ausradiert" from History. I cannot check what I added. Besides I am not blocked as Sennecaster treathened to do last time. Someone must have told them that is not possible. This is not North-Korea or Belarus. I don't think this woman understands that she should be helpful. Besides it does not look she is interested in my reply to Sennecaster. She does not mention the problem on the talk page; is that because nobody should be attracted to what she is doing? Too private, too busy? Deleting is easier than adding content and references. That is how I look at this case.Taksen (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Commercial use

After contacting the publisher (Brill) I understand the limitations do not have to do with them. The policy to limit the use of the article is introduced by Wikipedia, or some bureaucrats.Taksen (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC 4.0 license is not a compatible license, because that license does not allow commercial use, and our license does. Please see WP:Compatible license for a list of compatible licenses.— Diannaa (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

So you want publishers to allow commercial use? I have to change the text so my wording can used commercially? That looks crazy to me. Are you right wing? Take a look at Selma Stern, it might help.Taksen (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The terms of Wikipedia's license allow any type of use, including commercial use, as per the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, as long as attribution is given and the other terms of the license are met. The Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license under which the source paper is licensed does not allow commercial use. This means that we are not allowed to host text copied unaltered from that source. To do so is a violation of our copyright policy.— Diannaa (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you leave that to the publisher to check for commercial use? Wikipedia isn't. Why don't you tell those who want to use the text commercially to change the text? Why does Wikipedia feel responsible for something that is actually a case for the publisher? Why I am responsible for others with commercial intentions. Is that US law? It is hard to believe. If I would use the text commercially, I would check the article and not use Wikipedia, not reliable enough. I am not sure publishers appreciate your assistance. The only thing I can think of is a company who would like to add this article to their website, and charges money for it. Besides we live during a pandemic, where a visit to library became a problem. You deleted references to an article on line, which is useful. To me this all looks very unscientific. I will contact rights@brill.com again. Regards,Taksen (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

If the copyright holder wanted their work to be available for commercial use, they would have chosen a different license. As it stands, we can't use it.— Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

What Brill is trying to prevent is a company/website owner who would like to add this article to their website, and charges money for it.Taksen (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the copyright holder's intention, it's against our copyright policy to copy material from that source to Wikipedia. I am not going to post here any more, as I have repeatedly explained the terms of Wikipedia's copyright policy and the terms of the various Creative Commons licenses, and I have nothing further to add.— Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

remains controversial

"remains controversial" has been used 16,537 times on Wikipedia. To me it became a boring sentence.Taksen (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Image size

The real problem on Wikipedia is not the size of the images, nor the n-dashes, but the line length, which should be shorter.Taksen (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC) "upright" followed by a size in pixels makes sense as the program will use the last parameter, which is size.Taksen (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Gallica

Frontpage of Le Défenseur de la Constitution n° 6 (1792). All twelve issues of the weekly periodical can be found at the French Wikisource, and at Gallica. An introduction by Robespierre can be found at (in English); other works appeared at, which does not have the same content as.

Many people cannot read French, but that is not a good reason to remove it. If I am right it was Voltaire who said: "We don't want to die stupid." This document, retrieved from the Gallica platform of the BNF, corresponds to the fifth issue of the newspaper "Le Défenseur de la Constitution", written by Maximilien de Robespierre. It is not used anywhere on Wikipedia, except Wikisource. The Gallica might like some attention, and their books, articles and documents were helpful to me, so I put back.Taksen (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Please refer to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and especially MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. The purpose of images in an article is to aid readers' understanding of the article subject. It is not to make token use of an otherwise unused image (delete it!) or to promote another web site. The title of Le Défenseur (in French) already appears in the article, and you can add an image of the work as originally published if you want, but an image of a modern reprint is just pointless. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning. Please explain. This is what is written in the article in the section above: On 17 May, Robespierre published the first issue of his journal Le Défenseur de la Constitution (The Defender of the Constitution), in which he attacked Brissot and publicised his scepticism over the whole war movement.[145][146] The journal, printed by his neighbour Nicolas served multiple purposes: to print his speeches, to counter the influence of the royal court in public policy, to defend him from the accusations of Girondist leaders and to give voice to the economic and democratic interests of the broader masses in Paris and defend their rights.[147][148]

and this

Along with other Jacobins, he urged in the fifth issue of his magazine the creation of an "armée révolutionnaire" in Paris, consisting of at least 20,000 men,[151] to defend the city, "liberty" (the revolution), maintain order in the sections and educate the members in democratic principles; an idea he borrowed from Jean-Jacques Rousseau.[152] According to Jean Jaures, he considered this even more important than the right to strike.[citation needed][95]

Who invented this rule? ... you can add an image of the work as originally published if you want, but an image of a modern reprint is just pointless. Did you look into it? What is wrong with the original pamphlet and text written completely by Robespierre himself?Taksen (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

That's the point: the image in question is not the original (18th century) pamphlet. It is a modern rendering of the title, and something to avoid under MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. An image of a contemporary printing would still be an image of text, but less objectionable because it more directly illustrates the pamphlet. Your argument above was that the image should be included because it is good for the image and good for another web site. These are not reasons to include an image in an article. The article is the main thing, and images support it. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Please can someone else help, who can explain what you are saying, I still don't understand your reasoning. In my point of view it is the original from 1792. I think you created a new, not existing rule. I fear, people without a profile, usually have a secret agenda. What is your goal to dispute or hide what Robespierre wrote? Taksen (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, please. I have referred you to two applicable Wikipedia style guidelines. If you have not read them yet, do so now. If you believe that the image shows an original 18th-century printing then that is your error, not my "agenda." 73.71.251.64 (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I found this on the sidebar. It says the document was printed in 1792 so it is the original!Taksen (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC) It would be interesting to hear your opinion which was based on something that appears not true.Taksen (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Titel : Le Défenseur de la Constitution / par Maximilien Robespierre, député à l'assemblée constituante Autor  : Robespierre, Maximilien de (1758-1794). Auteur du texte Verleger : () Erscheinungsdatum : 1792 Bibliographische Aufnahme : http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb32754883kSprache : Französisch Format : Nombre total de vues : 633 Beschreibung : 1792 Beschreibung : 1792 (N5). Identificativo : ark:/12148/bpt6k10456568 Herkunft : Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Philosophie, histoire, sciences de l'homme, RES 8-LC2-687Provenienz : Bibliothèque nationale de France

Online-Datum :  : 06/05/2013 https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k10456568?rk=107296;4

That is not what 18th-century printed works look like. You are confused beyond helping.

For heaven's sake, there's a photograph of the contemporary printing on that image's information page. Why didn't you just add that photograph to the article, instead of spouting nonsense? 73.71.251.64 (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I found the frontpage of no: 6, let's see if we can get the caption right

First you changed the caption with a print from Reinier Vinkeles with something questionable, so I had to improve it. Then you deleted a pic with false reason, now you deleted the references. This is not Wild West. I wonder if you ever opened the particular pic, and if you understand French. I have not seen you adding something, but I was able to improve the article. Try you luck somewhere else.Taksen (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Refer to the style guidelines. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aocho032. Peer reviewers: Andreasvg, IMZ Editor.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Que dis-je page 122

As mentioned, as part of my edit, the French source can be seen at https://archive.org/details/oeuvrescomplte09robeuoft/page/122/mode/2up -- 4th line down. The *context* of "Que dis-je?" is translated decently well enough, in the article. The French source lacks any attempt at rhetorically elucidating punctuation. If one were to render his sense properly, in French, with more accurate punctuation, it would be, "... si Louis peut être encore l'objet d'un procès, Louis peut être absous; il peut être innocent - que dis-je?! - il EST PRÉSUMÉ l'être, jusqu'a ce qu'il soit jugé!!" <-- the which, in English, would in turn be something like, "... if Louis may still be given a trial, he may be absolved, he could be innocent - [yo, wait, fellas,] what am I sayin' ??? - he *IS PRESUMED* to be so [to be innocent], until he is judged!!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.129.39 (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Too long?

The article on Robespierre has 70,000 pageviews each month. The article on the French Revolution has 200,000; the Reign of Terror 58,000; the National Convention 9,000; the Fall of Robespierre has only 500 pageviews a month. The message is clear, many people are interested in the French Revolution as it is a beautiful drama. When you or I move details to the more specific articles the information will not be read or get lost. It will be a lot of work to merge the information into the other articles. Will you do that with your limited knowledge? If not you who else? Actually not many people complained about the length.

The topic is not easy to understand if one read just one or two books or try to understand Robespierre in just an evening. The details on him being a special prosecutor {?}, the Insurrection of 31 May - 2 June 1793, or his Arrest, were not easy to find as they were in French and many authors skipped them being too complicated. The section Screen portrayals could be moved in my point of view to a new article.Taksen (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Taksen (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Interest in a topic is a poor measure of the quality of wikipedia articles. WP:Summary style should be used to ensure that this article highlights the most important points and leaves details to sub-articles. The current length, at well over 100kb readable prose, "almost certainly should be divided" per WP:Article size. Such extreme length causes slowness in loading a page and difficulty accessing information. (t · c) buidhe 09:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with User:Buidhe's unprompted suggestion, which seems at odds with the article and its numerous WP:RSs. The French Revolution is a complicated and disturbing period of French history (cf Simon Schama's monumental "Citizens") with Robespierre as one of the central figures during La Terreur. The article should be compared to the equivalent fr.wiki article or parallel articles such as Jean-Paul Marat on en.wiki. There is no intellectual reason for chopping up this kind of content (beyond a nodding hommage to the Tricoteuses). There seems to be no wp:consensus for change (no call for Horrible Histories or Ladybird Books). On the other hand, Buidhe has not previously edited this article. Perhaps they could therefore explain themselves more carefully, addressing the integrity of the subject matter and its sources. After all wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Mathsci (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

If you want to change the policies and guidelines, you can start RfCs at WP:Article size and WP:Summary style to get them changed. Until such RfCs pass, all articles related to the French Revolution should be written in line with the existing rules of enwiki and any local consensus to the contrary is invalid. "You haven't edited the article" is just an ad hominem. (t · c) buidhe 15:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM: United States is a much longer article, that has not been challenged; similarly the slightly shorter articles Europe, United Kingdom and Canada follow the consensus of editors. Returning to the topic, fr:Maximilien de Robespierre is a WP:FA, much longer than the en.wiki article; its sources and structure are useful. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

erewnet

I do not understand this Canterbury Tail very well; he removed several references and then asks for three new refs without deleting or changing the text? In all he removed around ten references from Hazan, without going on the talk page to announce his action or discuss it.

Was he happy he could delete without any explanation or studying it? He could have removed the link? Why is this book less reliable than others? Even Schama and Israel were critized with their books on the French Revolution. Nobody knows the complete truth. He should be stopped as deleting references is a crime (without discussing it).

This website recommends the book by Hazan, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20177066-a-people-s-history-of-the-french-revolution

But this book gave me some trouble. Don’t get me wrong, Eric Hazan’s A People’s History of the French Revolution is full of interesting information and facts, but it is not written for people who have an interest in history but rather people who study history.

I understand from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/17/peoples-history-french-revolution-eric-hazan-review there is something wrong with the book by Hazan but this article certainly does not rely on Hazan. The French Revolution is a very difficult topic and every author even Hazan and Matthiez, notorious Robespierrists can help to understand.Taksen (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

All sources are inherently biased; it's better to have a mix of pro- and anti-Robespierre sources than only anti-Robespierre ones. CherryPigeon (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Erenow.net, the link is blacklisted. You are welcome to add back the reference work that the website was hosting back in but not the url. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Response

For starters, Fouche isn't a trustworthy source when it comes to information on Robespierre. They were very much political rivals. Citing him as a source for Robespierre would be akin to citing Donald Trump's campaign ad for information on Joe Biden.

Study his enemies; sure, but when the only source is the memoirs of a political foe, they can't be relied upon as object fact, can they? "Tyrannical habit of judging" doesn't sound like unbiased language to me.

It's not a rule, it's something that I believe should be placed in context. If you want to restore them; fine, but clarify that it was his political opponent who surmised that, not an indisputable truth. The original version appeared to state it as fact.

I deleted "at that time he was lost" because it did not seem neutral, rather stating an opinion, in an article already fiercely biased against Robespierre. It had nothing to do with Mme. de Stael's credibility. If you see fit to put it back, you can, I was just trying to push for neutrality in the article. When someone is as maligned and controversial as Robespierre, attempts at neutrality can look like support.

That would be "some of her relatives" and not "her entire family", wouldn't it?

I don't understand why you are accusing me of thinking myself a monarch. Me :handshake: Robespierre: getting accused of this?? For some reason?

I fixed an error. Why are you criticizing me for this? Isn't Wikipedia a community project with an intention of being neutral and accurate? Robespierre is most certainly not a figure horrific enough to merit a non-neutral POV. Non-neutral POV articles should be saved for people the likes of Hitler or Mussolini.

Perhaps an "according to" would be fit here for Theresa Cabarrus. That seems like a good compromise, as it is hard to quantify "how much" a victim was pursued.

"Intoxicated with virtue" is not a neutral way of stating something.

Occam's razor is important here, 22 Prairial's consequences couldn't have been foreseen, and there is plenty of evidence against the claim that Robespierre somehow wanted to cause more executions. I don't think it was any kind of mastermind conspiracy, just a law that went badly wrong, and several secondary sources support this. If you really want to keep that interpretation, both should be provided. Again, I didn't see the need for more anti-Robespierre speculation in an already biased article.

I also don't see the need for your condescension here. You know nothing about me. I'm not a child.

CherryPigeon (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hazan

This morning I was very surprised to see that Hazan is not cited once in the French article on Robespierre. Is there something wrong?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/17/peoples-history-french-revolution-eric-hazan-review

• Hazan has put together a history that is often shockingly one-sided.
• He relies on narrow, highly partisan, and largely out-of-date source material in order to engage in a classic French pastime.

https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/1736

In the article on Robespierre I added everything that struck me, but I had not seen this before.

• ‘The Girondin policy in the first months of 1793 was impotent and blind: France would have been lost’.
• Eventually, his rupture with the Commune concerning the implementation of a maximum wage led to his eventual downfall.

https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1716-eric-hazan-responds-to-david-bell-s-review-of-a-people-s-history-of-the-french-revolution-in-the-guardian

• So Bell is right, my book is not objective. I had thought that the idea of ‘historical objectivity’ had long been buried, that it was obvious to everyone that in writing history you are also saying something about yourself.

I never liked Wikipedia policy of changing the original text and than add a reference as if that what he or she wrote.

RegardsTaksen (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It's frankly ridiculous, in my opinion, that this source is discounted for being "too opinionated" but somehow... people repeatedly defend Fouche's memoirs being used as a source for speculation treated as fact on Robespierre.

I've read the book, it's opinionated and admits such, but has actual information that is sourced and documented, unlike a certain 18th century politician's ramblings on his opponents.

CherryPigeon (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I liked to read Hazan's book, it helped to understand the French Revolution.Taksen (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"la Grande Terreur"

Why do we give this phrase in French in the lede rather than say, "Reign of Terror". - Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Death penalty and slavery

In the article on death penalty and its opposition Robespierre is not mentioned and for good reasons. I deleted it from the lead. Secondly, Robespierre did not visit or participate in the discussion on 4 February 1794. I could not find his name in the Le Moniteur Universel, although many authors/articles mention his name. He was busy writing his speech on Virtue and Terror. What I understand he was against Atlantic slave trade after he sent Jacques Pierre Brissot, the champion of equal rights for the blacks, to the guillotine and accused Sonthonax and Polverel of freeing the enslaved on Haiti. This topic is highly controversial and needs attention. Taksen (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Ask a merchant of human flesh

Ask a merchant of human flesh what is property; he will answer by showing you that long coffin he calls a ship... Ask a gentleman [the same] who has lands and vassals... and he will give you almost the identical ideas.

— Robespierre, "The Principles of Property", 24 April 1794.

This quote was added on 12 January 2016, but with a wrong year; in was on 24 April 1793. I wonder which year McPhee, or Jordan wrote down in their original? I hardly touched this section until recently finding it too confusing, but now I better understand why.Taksen (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Reply to CherryPigeon

Finally an expert arrived here after working on this article for 2.5 years.

• I think it is not by accident that Robespierre was attacked exactly after a year, hoping to be reelected in the Committee of Public Safety for another year. Robespierre had to be arrested, not removed which is too soft. Because of the former prerogatives of the nobles who could stay in office until their death, restrictions were introduced in institutions to improve the democratic practise. (In the Garde Nationale each year officers and non-commissioned officers could be elected on 14 July.{reference needed})
• Robespierre made no secret of the fact that he intended to have them punished. (Where did he say that??). It came from Fouché, a reference you deleted.
• You deleted also: Robespierre with his 'tyrannical habit of judging' demanded the heads of nine people, who opposed his republic of virtue. It came from "Fouche's memoirs, though a primary source, are not remotely a good source to use here. Fouche was one of Robespierre's greatest political enemies and a known member of an anti-Robespierre movement. His word should not be relied on here." I think to understand Robespierre well one has to study his enemies. I am convinced it really helped, but you disagree. The article is more or less based on the people that disagreed with him 28 July 1794, not on the one who supported him. That does not bring enough new details. There are many rules on Wikipedia, but it is hard to believe one cannot use sources from opponents. Did you invented this rule yourself?
• You deleted: According to Madame de Staël, it was from that time he was lost. Germaine was very well politically informed; her father was a minister of finance for many years. She even met Robespierre. She is a contemporary source. It should go back, as it is an important detail. There is more than one point of view possible or available.
• How many of these 53 people were related to Cécile Renault is unclear; at least three according to the executioner. The others were so-called accomplices.
• Can we find a contemporary confirmation of this? Why did you use the Royal we?
• It was Tallien, not Billaud, who threatened to use the dagger. That was a small mistake as the picture next to it was given the right name.
• Some claimed Moses, but I have even seen Jesus.
• Never did Robespierre pursue a victim (Theresa Cabarrus) more remorselessly. Why is the reference deleted? Unacademic!
• You deleted: Intoxicated with his virtue, Robespierre announced a new wave of purification. Virtue is essential in Robespierre speeches. It should go back.

Reply to Reply to CherryPigeon: Stop using Fouche as your sole source for anecdotes. The man was arguably Robespierre's greatest political enemy, who weaseled out of punishment for all his excesses during the terror, which Robespierre, I might remind you, strongly disapproved of. Using him as the sole source is like using a Donald Trump speech to find information on Joe Biden.

"Tyrannical habit of judging" is loaded language. Isn't this supposed to be an NPOV article?

The reference on Theresa Cabarrus was deleted because I could find no other evidence for it, and "never did [...] pursue more remorselessly" is opinion and loaded language. Unacademic!

"Intoxicated with his virtue" is also loaded language and opinion. How does one become drunk on virtue? It cannot be consumed like wine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CherryPigeon (talk • contribs) 05:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Fouche's Memoirs

Seeing that Fouche was one of Robespierre's greatest political opponents, I propose that his memoirs NOT be acceptable as a sole source for anecdotes. Treating his memoirs as NPOV and academic is tantamount to treating Donald Trump's speeches as NPOV and academic references on Joe Biden. Almost all of the incidents of sourced incredible loaded language I've seen on this page can be traced back to this man. CherryPigeon (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Reply

We had this discussion before. It is clear you don't like Fouché. You exaggerate his influence. How can you change this:

After exactly one year, Robespierre was undone by his obsession with the vision of an ideal republic and his indifference to the human costs of installing it, turning both members of the Convention and the French public against him.

into:

Eventually, disillusioned members of the Convention and the French public turned against him.

and leave the reference intact? That is not very reliable action. Robespierre was in office between 27 July 1793 – 27 July 1794, what is your problem. This is a fact.

Same here, how can you change and delete references?

On 23 April the triumvirate set up a General Police Bureau, independent of the Committee of General Security, tasked with gathering information and mostly reporting directly to Robespierre, as he took over the running ...

Here you deleted a reference to Cambridge University Press:

The Society of the Friends of the Blacks erected a lobby within the Convention to obtain the abolition of slavery, and this in spite of the hostility of Robespierre. The society’s declared purpose was to bring an end to the slave trade and in its wake the gradual abolition of the institution of slavery.

You are allowed to delete sentences without a reference and without discussing it; not with a reference. That is against the rules and is misleading the reader.Taksen (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Reply to CherryPigeon, part II

• You wrote: the law of 22 Prairial was aimed to reduce the excess executions in the French provinces, but backfired at a logistical level. Than why did the deputies get so scared? The result of these laws was that by June 1794 Paris was full of suspects awaiting trial. The law was also prompted by the idea that members of the Convention who had supported Georges Danton were politically unreliable - a view shared by Robespierre, Couthon, Saint-Just and others. They felt that these people needed to be brought swiftly to justice without a full debate by the Convention itself. It required the Tribunal to come to one of only two possible verdicts - acquittal or death. The law would free the Revolutionary Tribunals from control by the Convention and would greatly strengthen the position of prosecutors by limiting the ability of suspects to defend themselves. Furthermore, the law broadened the sorts of charges that could be brought so that virtually any criticism of the government became criminal.
• You deleted a detail and a ref, which is unnecessary: Robespierre was eventually undone by his obsession with the vision of an ideal republic and his indifference to the human costs of installing it, turning both members of the Convention and the French public against him.
• Hampson wrote: He declined any position that might take him out of the political arena. You changed it into: stating that he did not feel he could act as an unbiased judge in that circumstance. How does Hazan know? What did Robespierre write himself? He preferred to represent the commune.
• You deleted a ref, which is unnecessary. Besides John Moore was an eyewitness. What is the purpose of deleting this unique account?

Regarding the third point...that's not really a reliable claim,is it? I mean,let's be purely materialist here-Robespierre was brought down due to a general pushback againstla montagne from the plain and the former dantonists,and whatever Robespierre's ideological foibles were previously,he simply fell due to being a Montagnard during the wrong time,not due to any mortal hubris or what have you. MademoiselleGuillotine (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

RE: Reply

1) Maintaining NPOV language is what that's called. If you are not in fact Robespierre, you cannot claim he was "indifferent to the human costs of installing [a republic]". His behavior doesn't even support that hypothesis.

2) Both sources I checked out and found to be highly biased, and full of inaccurate info. It's well-known, for example, that Robespierre was never a dictator. Oxford's History of the French Revolution even confirms this- in a British source, no less. A source whose entire ethos is built around something disproven is not a good source to use to make such a large claim.

3) Condorcet was another political opponent of Robespierre; as I could not find anything that confirms his claim other than his account, I did not think it was fit to be included. Perhaps it could be replaced with the caveat that it is Condorcet's account and not object fact? That would seem a reasonable compromise.

4) I admit it, I don't like Fouche. Guilty as charged, etc. I mean, the man only brutally murdered thousands of people while acting as a representative on mission and then helped orchestrate a conspiracy to coup the elected government, while never facing any consequences. But no matter who he is or what he's done, adding his opinions as object facts, particularly when it comes to his enemies, is a bit biased for Wikipedia. CherryPigeon (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Fouché was a master of writing self-serving rubbish - he built a career on it. I don’t think it is necessary to record his views of Robespierre in the article, but if we do, it should be attributed to him and not stated in wiki voice. Mccapra (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

What if

"I'm losing patience here. Fouche's memoirs' contents should NOT be stated in Wiki voice. I don't know who put that there, but it's ridiculously biased and unnecessary. I have removed it for the umpteenth time."

• Of course you have an idea who put there. It's hypocrite. Besides you like to exaggerate.
• I'm working on this article for three years to find out myself what I think of Robespierre. 40% was done by me.
• I have not seen you adding many sources. I agree, it is rather circumstantial but is it a belief?
• In your point of view we cannot use authors who criticized Stalin, Hitler, Putin, etc. It should be specifically mentioned that they were his critics? Is that so?
• I agree Fouché would later use the same methods as Robespierre, set up a spy system.
• I like Fouché's description that Robespierre was intoxicated with his virtue. How would you describe a person who sent his former friends to the guillotine?
• Facts published may be refuted, if they are not founded. Not the other way around.

Taksen (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In my defense

"I like to exaggerate" what exactly? I have removed this multiple times, yet it keeps coming back, similar to the damn aristocracy.

If you're trying to form an opinion on someone, editing an article about them isn't necessarily the best way to do so, at least not in my opinion. Looking at the version history, I do suspect the 40% is somewhat of an exaggeration.

I have in fact added sources. You can check the version history. If you want a source for something in particular, you are welcome to place a [citation needed] template.

Comparing Stalin/Hitler/Putin to Robespierre is ridiculous. Non-NPOV is reserved for genocidal dictators, not moderately powerful 18th century politicians who never signed a single death warrant.

Fouche? Use the "same methods" as Robespierre? You mean Robespierre went out to the provinces and shot civilians with cannonballs? Oh wait, that was all Fouche and Collot d'Herbois. Which Robespierre did not approve of, by the way, and when another rep on mission (Carrier) tried similar things, Robespierre was influential in getting him recalled.

Fouche's. Opinions. Should. Not. Be. Written. In. Wiki. Voice. I don't care if you like the description. This is a supposedly neutral article on Robespierre, not an article on Wikipedia User Taksen's Opinions on Robespierre. And he didn't, in fact, send his friends to the guillotine. Revolutionary Tribunal who now??

"Intoxicated with virtue" and "indifferent to the human costs of installing a republic" are not founded facts. They are opinions. There is a difference. CherryPigeon (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This is absolutely right. If the opinions of Fouche are relevant (and as a major opponent of Robespierre who played a role in later judgements of him, they probably do deserve to appear somewhere), then they need to be included as quotations, and perhaps in the "legacy and memory" section, rather than in running text.

The comparison with Hitler and Stalin is wrong, since WP shouldn't base statements on contemporary critics or opponents of them either. As more recent figures, it is sometimes unavoidable that the major scholarly works on Hitler and Stalin are written by people who have experience of them; with Robespierre that's not an issue - there's over 200 years of scholarship to cite. Furius (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Fouche's memoirs are a primary source which need to be substantiated by a secondary source. That does not mean that primary sources should be deleted, a could have been enough, without knowing or finding one Taksen (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Fouché can go back to the text.

If I was a neutral author I would not have spent three years here. I would have done something else and left the Wikipedia article as it was. Taksen (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. They don't need to be deleted, but they should be used "only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts." So, you can cite Fouche as evidence that "Fouche characterised Robespierre as intoxicated on his own virtue" but you can't use it as a source that Robespierre actually was "intoxicated with virtue" because the phrase is a highly rhetorical opinion, not a straightforward description. As an important primary source, Fouche's opinions do matter and should appear in the article (as analysed by secondary sources), but probably in the "legacy and memory" section.

Per WP:NPOV, the article must be neutral. That's non-negotiable. It doesn't mean that you cannot have opinions, but you must put them aside when you write.

It is good that you have chosen to contribute and the project is richer for it, but this is a collaborative product, so it is important to discuss and work with other editors in order to achieve consensus. Furius (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I am wondering if Jeremey Popkin's opinions are really necessary in the top section (as opposed to the legacy and memory section). He's not exactly pointing out facts. I've left it up there but I would appreciate other opinions. CherryPigeon (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Citation style

Perhaps not the most pressing issue here, given other discussions and some sensitive topics, but nevertheless WP:CITEVAR is a thing, and it's not surprising that in an article of this length and with this many references that there is not a unified citation style. To keep tabs on this, I've added a handy {{ref info}} banner in the header section above, which will hopefully help us monitor progress on the subject of consistency of citation usage. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

An overabundance of quotes

This article has many primary source quotes. Some definitely add, but I feel it is a tad much. As Wikipedia:Quotation states "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Quotations embody the breezy, emotive style common in fiction and some journalism, which is generally not suited to encyclopedic writing. Long quotations crowd the actual article and distract attention from other information."

There are many long quotations that are not needed, or can be paraphrased. Most of them should be taken out, and I'll be doing that. I feel like it's a very major change, so please reply here if you think I over did anything.

Natasha862 (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I put "primary source" but I meant quotes in general. There are many from secondary sources as well that I feel are superfluous. I will be removing some of them too. Again, revert and reply if you feel I over did anything!

Natasha862 (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I am happy Renssen saved the legacy! Robespierre kept many scholars busy during their lifetime. One cannot understand Robespierre in twenty minutes, right? I fear most people will not read the article to the end. Wikipedia does not tell us how long visitors stay, but I assume they will have left within 10 seconds, which mostly happens when one is surfing on the internet. (I don't have doubts as it is my experience for many years on my own website.) The lead should be interesting and explain what will come next. Besides the main articles to which it refers, are less well read. So I added most information here as it is complicated to work and to move information to several articles at the same time. (The information from Britannica and Greer about the amount of suspects, etc. and about the carnival could be moved in due course.) Perhaps I added a lot of primary sources, but quite often it was impossible to deal and to have an opinion at once or describe it in my own wording, a problem for a non-native speaker. A lot of these (primary) sources were necessary in order to get the chronology right.Taksen (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

[To Rjensen] Hi there! I saw you reverted my change on the robespierre article. I tend towards taking out too much, so I expected someone to put stuff back in. Either way though, I do feel like what's currently there is over brimming. Some of the history stuff just doesn't belong there. I may split it into two sections. I still plan to take some stuff out, but I'll be much more conservative. If I take out anything you deem important, feel free to reput it back in, or talk to me on my talk page about it. Have a good day! Natasha862 (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The scholarly coverage is massive (and mostly in French) --so unless the readers have advanced degrees in French history they will be unable to figure it out easily. That's why our role should be to summarize what happened (which we do) and also summarize the fierce debates among scholars about what it means. (which you removed). If you are going to make big changes: a) do it piecemeal or you will get reverted; b) explain your actions in depth on the talk page. Hundreds of experienced Wiki editors have worked on the page for decades, so please respect their hard work. Rjensen (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Your reverts in the section Legacy were too bold. You did not care about the number of references. Not very academic to delete sources, nor polite. We are standing on their shoulders. Your opinion is less important than theirs.Taksen (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I purposely was bold, and expected some reverts. I'm sorry you found it impolite Taksen. Natasha862 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You have a good sense for language, please look here. At times the article is very well read, but it needs a better editor. Thanks.Taksen (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at that and copyedit it.

Also, I noticed you removed the reference to Henriette dying I added. This event definitely affected Robespierre, so I feel like it's important to include.

I only used McPhee because it was on my shelf and I knew it mentioned Henriette's death. Considering that it is a biography, I don't see why it can't be used, but If you know another source you prefer that mentions it, feel free to use that instead. I only care that this detail is included.

Natasha862 (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Tiny false sentence about Maximilien Robespierre

In the section "Abolition of Slavery", it reads that Robespierre was not a member of the Society of the Friends of the Blacks, yet it says he was on the Notable Members section on the Society of the Friends of the Blacks article DragonMaster9817 (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Maiden Aunts????

Really???? In this day of age you needed to print “maiden aunts”..omit asap!! 2607:FEA8:3A9F:94F1:FD66:3C92:19FE:B7BF (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hidden text

Many times I work on various articles in different languages. Regarding Robespierre, my involvement began in 2010 but took a more serious turn in 2019. While my memory serves well for dates, retaining every detail proves challenging. To ensure chronological accuracy, I incorporate hidden comments. My proficiency with LaTeX dates back to the 1990s, a program upon which Wikipedia relies. In disciplines like physics and mathematics, hidden comments are commonplace, a practice less common on Wikipedia.

Additionally, when both preceding and subsequent sentences refer to the French author Walter on the same page, it's reasonable to attribute the intermediate sentence to Walter as well. Predicting reader preferences for references poses a challenge. Moreover, the year 1791 lacks the same focus as 1792 and beyond among French historians. Clarity regarding his role as public accuser remains elusive. Taksen (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Taksen, thanks for the comments. My understanding is that hidden text is only to be used for short guidelines, such as flagging why something doesn't need to be wikilinked, or that "a particular issue has been discussed, so please go to Talk page to raise your suggestion", etc. It's not meant to be used for substantive text, or for citations/notes. Doing so masks the full content of the article, making it readable only through the edit function. That's why I've been converting hidden text to plain text in the article, for anyone to read easily. I think that is required by MOS:DONTHIDE. When I started doing this yesterday, my first count was that there were close to 200 examples of hidden text in the article as a whole, and almost all of them that I looked at were substantive content; those are the ones I've been bringing out as plain text, which anyone reading the article can read without going into the editor. If there are problems with the text I've brought out into plain text, then we can fix them. I've done some fixes as I went along, but am using a very "light touch" because I don't have a great deal of familiarity with Robespierre. I'm bringing the text into plain sight, and then we can work on problems, as you have been doing. (I have found some examples of hidden text in the infobox which to my understanding don't violate MOS:DONTHIDE, because they are examples of guidelines on not duplicate linking, etc.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Reply and comments

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, in your early edits you deleted what Robespierre said:

"As for myself, I abhor the death penalty administered by your laws, and for Louis I have neither love nor hate; I hate only his crimes."

This text was invisible for many years, because there is no place or specific date mentioned. Rereading it I thought this could go back in somewhere. Robespierre explains well what happened earlier in 1791 where you questioned this:

"The current French constitution is a republic with a monarch.[131] It is therefore neither a monarchy nor a republic. She is both."[132] Cordeliers like Danton suggested not to recognize Louis XVI as their king. Robespierre frowned on the efforts to promote republican ideology but had not yet acquired the unchallenged grip over the Jacobins for which he would be known.[citation needed] The court denounced him as a republican.[133]

Thank you for paying attention to it. (Perhaps you can think of a solution how to bring those two details together, by moving or copying references? It is a pity I do not understand all the refinement in the rules. I prefer to stick to:

"Editors use "invisible" comments ... to communicate with one another." Quite often they became questions which I could not solve at that time and needed to remind or was open for comments. Anyhow, I will check more of your work and add here when or where I disagree. See you later. Taksen (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I never ask other people to look for references. Always I went searching and improving my self. This is how I learn and the reason the article changed in the past five years. byebyeTaksen (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)