Talk:Maximilien Robespierre/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Deleted video links

I have reverted the videolinks previously reverted by Nikkimaria and restored by Taksen, for three reasons: (1) Not clear if all of those links meet copyright concerns, as set out in WP:VIDEOLINK; (2) Comments about the themes and "balance" of the videolinks, without supporting cites, infringes NPOV and WP:OR; (3) Taksen can't have it both ways, and say that Nikkimaria can't put the TOOLONG template up without doing something, and then revert it right away when Nikkimaria starts cutting the article to comply with the standard page limits. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This section became pretty unbalanced. Charles F. Warwick published his book in 1909. It can't be historically reliable section if it does not show nothing newer. There are many rules which can be used in one's own profit, some rules I don't trust. I know Wikipedia does not like YouTube, me neither, but these documentaries are pretty good. They explain Robespierre pretty well when studying him.

You were also the one who added a lot of hidden text and references recently. Now you deleted this template and want the article to become shorter. How can you change your mind so quickly? It took P. Jordan more than 300 pages. I think this article is confusing when someone is not familiar with all the names but it has only 40 pages, 75 including the many refs.Taksen (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding changes in approach, it's common for contributors to reassess and refine their editing strategies based on various factors, including article length, readability, and relevance of content. The intention might be to ensure clarity for readers who might not be familiar with the names mentioned. Balancing comprehensiveness with readability is often a delicate task in creating accessible yet informative articles.Taksen (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

As you can see I used ChatJPG to reply. Finally there is a program that assists with formulating.Taksen (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

No size limits

I don't know how to link to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_paper

but this is what is written there:Taksen (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The most obvious difference is that there are, in principle, no size limits in the Wikipedia universe. It is quite possible, for example, that when you finish typing in everything you want to say about poker, there might well be over 100 pages, and enough text for a full-length book by itself. This would certainly never be tolerated in a paper encyclopedia, which is why Encyclopædia Britannica has such limited information on the topic (and on most other topics).

and from the same article:

Any encyclopedic subject of interest should be covered, in whatever depth is possible.

The English Wikipedia version of that page is WP:NOTPAPER, which states, "Editors should limit individual articles to a reasonable size to keep Wikipedia accessible (see Wikipedia:Article size). Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style)." Nikkimaria (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

While some articles may appear lengthy to readers unfamiliar with the subject matter, it's crucial to distinguish personal opinions about their length. Such judgments are more appropriately expressed on the talk page rather than being prominently featured at the top of the article.Taksen (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

December 1793 is a crucial month regarding the reign of terror. I moved some of the details to Le Vieux Cordelier but that article only has about ten/fifteen readers a day. That means that information gets lost. The context - the discussion with Desmoulins, who protected Danton, the suicide of Clavière, and the arrests and executions in December - should not disappear.Taksen (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

While there is room for improvement in the article, the current template is inaccurately applied. It has not undergone discussion, and the presence of numerous sections and subsections contradicts the assertion presented to the reader. A more accurate evaluation should be considered before displaying such information.Taksen (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Execution time frame needs correction or clarification.

According to the intro and infobox, Robespierre died on 10 Thermidor. However, the second paragraph in the "Execution" section currently lists the sequence of events thusly: 1) the Revolutionary Tribunal assembled at noon on 10 Thermidor, 2) Robespierre & Co. were accused of being counter-revolutionary and sentenced to death at 2 a.m. [which would be 14 hours later on 11 Thermidor], 3) Rob & Co. were taken away to be executed at 6 p.m. [another 16 hours later].

So, A) is the "2 a.m." really supposed to be "2 p.m."; B) "2 a.m." refers only to when they were accused of being counter-revolutionary (i.e. arrested) and not when they were sentenced, and therefore that event should be split off and listed before the information about when the Tribunal met; or C) they really did wait thirty hours and executed him on the 11th? 104.184.182.119 (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

you are right, it was 2 p.m, thanks. I changed it.Taksen (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Too long?

• Yes, it is long but not as long as the French equivalent.
• It takes years before one understands the French Revolution or Robespierre. The topic is not for babies. Most readers will be older people.
• One cannot understand Robespierre within a day. It took me almost twenty years.
• This article had millions of views, not very many complained about its length. Most people will not read the whole article anyhow.
• For a long time I know this article is not perfect but the numbers of readers doubled last month which has to do with a new movie on Napoleon. I have not seen it, but it is clear more people got interested in Robespierre.
• I assume the readers appreciate this article as is not superficial or written in an amateur or high school style. I agree, it contains of lot of details and has a lot of references.
• It is difficult to predict what people like to see referenced but recently some added about 80-90 references which I kept hidden.
• I think you should prove all the information on Robespierre should be split so we get an article that is easier to digest. I my point of view it will damage the article.
• When I checked your contributions I noticed I was not familiar with any of the topics. They seem the be about locals, not very many French or historical figures. Of course you got confused reading this article.
• This article contains a few highly controversial issues in which quite a few people seem to be interested: The right to bear arms, the abolition of slavery and the attack on the Convention.
• A few months ago someone tried to delete the legend section. Fortunately someone stopped her.
• Your perspective holds less weight compared to the insights of historians who dedicate years or even a lifetime to studying Robespierre.
• You could have used the talk page first instead of putting an ugly label on it and shocking the reader.
• Why should we bother about just one person who has problems reading it.
• Your talk page is also very long. I think this may have to do with each other.
• Only a few weeks ago someone added a lot of hidden information. He thought the article was too short. I could not stop him. Taksen (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC) It is unusual what he did, most like to delete, which is easier.
• This article has a lot of sections, main sections and subsections, your label is superfluous.Taksen (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Many of the points raised above conflict with our policies and practices. Wikipedia is written for a wide, general audience. Readers should not have to spend years reading this article to understand the topic. Nor is the readership limited to the elderly or to experts. The article should be accessible to those without a background in the topic. This is especially true given the popularity of the topic, and the associated influx of curious laypeople. In order to promote accessibility, fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article, with this article kept to a high-level summary of the subject; this helps to maintain readability. The state of an article on another wiki is not relevant to our local policies and guidelines, nor is the state of a talk page. Nor is it the case that the perspectives of historians carry any more weight. Finally, aesthetics are not a reason to abstain from appropriate tags, which place the article in the necessary cleanup categories to help it be improved. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I just deleted the template, nobody seems to be interested in leaving a comment. Besides the template frightens people to read the article which is not what we want. The amount of visitors dropped considerably within a few days which is not what I like to see. Regards, Taksen (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Restored, since the issue hasn't yet been addressed. People wouldn't see the template unless they open the article, so any difference in pageviews cannot be attributed to that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Most people will only stay a few seconds/perhaps a few minutes and then decide to leave. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not show this. Take a look at simple:Maximilian Robespierre. It is short but pretty good. Somehow it should mentioned in the template. Another option is too mention the article on French Revolution, which deals with the same topic. One can easily see how complicated this topic is. (A biography of Robespierre is actually an account on the French Revolution; that is why the article is so long.) I asked ChatGPT to improve several sections but it is a lot of work to go through the rest. I can only do a limited amount of text a day. If nobody responds I will delete the template again. We do not need head teachers but people who participate. Taksen (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

If you feel it should be mentioned in the template, feel free to propose that at the template's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Because of an edit conflict I was not able to make improvements. I am not interested in improving templates and its talk pages. I specialize on the content. Please do not tell me to "feel free". Again you try to put me at work and you can lay back.Taksen (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

To my surprise someone recently added the same template to the article on the French Revolution; is this a new wave? He added: I leave that to editors more familiar with the literature. Horrible, I would not comment on articles which I do not understand or not familiar with. It seems also to be your problem.Taksen (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC) I'm not so interested in people who do not "feel" responsible for their actions.Taksen (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC) I hope Wikipedia will limit one day the activities of people who only drop a template and who are not interested in the consequences and further development of the article.Taksen (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the "Too long" template. There is a clear editing guideline dealing with article length: Wikipedia:Article size. Individual editors cannot simply ignore that guideline. In particular, any article over 15,000 words "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed." WP:TOOBIG. The XTools for this page indicates that it currently has 21,315 words. That is more than 6,000 words over the recommended limit. To comply with that guideline, this article needs to be trimmed.

Wikpedia uses summary style; articles here should not be the same as articles in academic journals. Over-long articles go contrary to that principle: WP:SUMMARY:

"This is more helpful to the reader than a very long article that just keeps growing, eventually reaching book length. Summary style keeps the reader from being overwhelmed by too much information up front, by summarizing main points and going into more details on particular points (subtopics) in separate articles. What constitutes "too long" varies by situation, but generally 50 kilobytes of readable prose (8,000 words) is the starting point at which articles may be considered too long. Articles that go above this have a burden of proof that extra text is needed to efficiently cover their topics and that the extra reading time is justified." [my bolding]

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Over several years, I've diligently gathered substantial data. Despite my comprehensive collection, condensing it into concise summaries remains challenging. A friend suggested incorporating brief summaries at the conclusion of each section, a technique I did not explore.

While platforms like DeepL offer summarization tools, my usage has been limited, just yesterday. I believe assigning this summarization task to another individual would be beneficial. Alternatively, delaying the summarization process until I'm available is an option, as I prefer relocating these valuable details rather than deleting them.

My inclination doesn't align with multitasking across various articles simultaneously after investing considerable time. Some intricacies are solely mentioned here, pivotal in enriching the narrative. Consequently, retaining these specifics has been integral to presenting a comprehensive storyline.Taksen (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

As you can see I used ChatJPG to reply. Finally there is a program that assists with formulating.Taksen (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't remove at this time - additional work is needed for the reasons outlined above. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Taksen: Please stop edit-warring. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz and I have explained to you above the relevant guideline, and the article still requires additional work to meet it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Template

I'm concerned that shortening the article may result in the omission of events and accusations against Robespierre, which might be intentional.Taksen (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Get support here, and not on my talk page, Taksen (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Taksen, I have support here - see discussion above. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)