Jump to content

Talk:Maximilien Robespierre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silverwhistle (talk | contribs) at 13:44, 9 March 2020 (→Comparison with Wikipédia (FR)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Andreasvg, IMZ Editor.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maximilien_Robespierre&oldid=944711094"