Talk:Maximilien Robespierre

Legacy

Hello. I just want to signal that the legacy section is missing a large amount of French historiography in recent years. Of course, some of that isn’t getting a lot of attention in English literature, but most of it is very important, and marks a new development in research concerning Robespierre. The section on fr.wiki on the legacy of Robespierre mentions a call by all mainstream center-left and left-wing parties to rehabilitate Robespierre, published by Le Monde, at the end. Nothing about any of that here. The research of Jean-Clément Martin is also missing. Both en.wiki and fr.wiki are missing modern political reappropriations like that of La France Insoumise, and there is no word yet on the criticism of the "proto-communist" approach. I’m planning on working on it myself, but since one user, @Taksen: has been working on this article for years now, I would like to know their opinion about this. Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I can see you like talk pages. Another thing is that you are very unexperienced when it comes to Robespierre. Many historians spent their whole life on him. I never studied Pierre Serna and the article on him is unimpressive. It is not necessary to mention the Spring revolutions here, this discussion is from 2011, or pay more attention to the latest Marxist point of view, which is difficult to follow unless one understands French very well and has a subscription on French newspapers. The article is already long enough, sorry.

Are you active on the French Wikipedia? I was not able to find much. Perhaps you could start an article on the French left wing view on him? Something that does not seem easy to me. A better idea is to improve the article on Serna, or Jean-Clément Martin (which I started many years ago). Then we can see what you added. Thank you for you concern. Taksen (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC) I did like this link on the French Wikipedia but will not use it: [3]

Thanks for stalking me, I guess, though it’s not what your supposed to do. I think it is important to mention the left-wing view of him, because you seem to think it is exclusively a Marxist perspective which sees him positively. There is also criticism to him being a communist, which isn’t mentioned here. I’m not familiar with this subject, I’m familiar with the Inca Empire… So I guess your right, still, your tone isn’t pleasant. You can see my contributions on fr.wiki by going there. You never studied Pierre Serna? That seems to be a problem, but whatever. From previous discussions you seem to not understand French very well and to not like French historiography in general in the article. It’s not long, two paragraphs perhaps. I will go on to translate fr.wiki, and then add everything which is missing there. Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

There, not too long, isn’t it. Encyclopédisme (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

What does "There, not too long, isn’t it" mean? What is your username/utilisateur on the French Wikipedia?Taksen (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopédisme, the same one as here? I translated it. Do you not know how to see user contributions? Encyclopédisme (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have a feeling your a little biased in condensing some info. But whatever, the call by those three parties is important, as it shows a wide political mobilisation, those parties are, with exception of the radical party, the two most important parties next to EELV and LFI. The socialist party always had a Jacobin tradition, so this information is important, the section is entitled legacy, not historiography. Everything important concerning his posterity has a place there. Encyclopédisme (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda? Either you discuss this at talk, or I’m starting an ANI case. You know the rule where no article belongs to one person? Encyclopédisme (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Taksen:: As to Jaurès, he does talk about Robespierre. Encyclopédisme (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have little knowledge of guidelines. I gave you the reasons up there. The Chinese historian is really that important? Fine. But first discuss things, this article doesn’t belong to you. Encyclopédisme (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Wp:Ownership of content for reference. I am still awaiting your answer. If you start an edit war, I’m starting an ANI case. Encyclopédisme (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Taksen:, please, come here, and discuss your issues with the presence of the French center-left parties in the "legacy" section designed to contain the posterity of Robespierre. Other works aren’t presented in such detail as the one by that Chinese historian (have you read it and you were impressed? In that case, that doesn’t justify the other parts of the section being so short). There is an introduction to the neo-liberal and revisionist school, there are citations from different revisionist historians, not mentioning the general trend and tradition. And for good reason, the article is way too long. But you see, this information, presented in a short paragraph, is an important information, as Jacobin thought had and has an influence on the French non-Marxist left. That is an information missing here. Perhaps there should be a paragraph explicitly stating this information, however the omission of the political parties because it is "out of focus" as you put it, isn’t a justification. If you are doing this because you think otherwise it would be "propaganda", you would be showing bias on a, sorry, controversial figure. If you aren’t doing this, and I’m going to assume good faith, then why not care to explain and discuss (that can take time) instead of edit warring. Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Taksen: You wrote in your edit summary that removing sourced info isn’t allowed, fine, if you think so, don’t know a guideline that says this, but fine, only problem is that counts for everything. Nice try, but I added the source. It’s by AFP, multiple journals have it, this new link works. You can read it if you want. And please, explain yourself, I gave you many reasons for why to keep it, you haven’t answered any of them. Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It is clear from your history you are a querulant bye bye!!!Taksen (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Taksen: Wp:Personal attacks. So you are just going to let me edit this page? I see you have bypassed consensus concerning the length of some sections, but that doesn’t concern me. If I will add more sourced details in the legacy section, you will just let me do it? In that case, great. Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Remarks on changes by CherryPigeon

I noticed your changes on the Revolutionary Tribunal but never commented. I will add some to the talk page. Here is what strikes me on your latest changes on Robespierre:

• You deleted the word deplorable which is a pity. It does not do any harm and tells what was going on.
• You deleted: for Louis I have neither love nor hate; I hate only his crimes. The source is remarkable!
• According to his friend, the surgeon Joseph Souberbielle, Joachim Vilate,. You added a "cn" which is unnecessary as it is not true, if we believe Charlotte.

Here is the ref to "La fille de son hôte passoit pour sa femme, et avoit une sorte d'empire sur lui."

• You deleted: Robespierre urged the arrest of the Girondins. Again the source is remarkable and fully in line with what follows. What you are saying: IT IS NONSENSE TO USE WIKISOURCE in an article or to write MEMOIRES BECAUSE IN WIKIPEDIA it is not allowed to USE them?Taksen (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• You deleted: Robespierre advocated for the dissolution of the Convention, convinced that this measure would be admired by future generation. In response, Cambon asserted that such measure was not his intent, drawing applause, and thus concluded the session.<ref name="auto10"> This detail came from Le Moniteur Universel. I subscribed to Retronews to be able to read all the newspapers that came out during the French Revolution. It even cost me money to subscribe. I have no idea what you mean with: if you find it in the actual minutes you can add it back in. It is a reliable source but I suppose you try to save Robespierre from critic. I hate references like name="auto10" I never used this kind of notation and it is even possible someone deleted the pagenumber.

The detail about Cambon and Robespierre early October 1793 from Retronews should go back as soon as I found it. :::Here it is:

• You added: I did not know Hodges was regarded as unreliable but what became clear to me he used Palmer as a source. Palmer is the one which should be mentioned. His book is not online, if I remember well.
• On 3 December Robespierre accused Danton in the Jacobin Club of feigning an illness to emigrate to Switzerland. Again this comes from Retronews, and Le Moniteur Universel on 4 or 5 6 December 1793. Because I had a subscription I was able to download the text, use search, etc. We could blame the contributor who added <ref name="auto10"/>. I was quite content when I found these striking details about Cambon and Danton in the Moniteur as nobody had used them before. Later I learned to add the exact date and pagenumber and did not add/forgot about making a link. The policy of Retronews may have changed and I am not a subscriber anymore but you could ask Wikipedia to pay for a subscription. It is a useful source. Perhaps I downloaded these editions, I will check. I will not do this everyday. I have many other problems to solve. It is okay, I cannot work on Wikipedia. It would be nice to find a French-Canadian who could add sources in French. The Wikipedia will be poor without French sources.Taksen (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  So I did another look-through of the issue of Le Moniteur in question, and I believe that there was perhaps a misinterpretation. In the quotation, Robespierre did not advocate for the dissolution of the Convention; rather, he was talking about how lack of progress/implementation of a constitution for the nation was giving "nos ennemis" more ammunition to clamor for such. Seeing as he also listed "divide the patriots" as one of the "cries" mentioned, I find it pretty clear that he was not endorsing these ideas. Criticize Robespierre all you like, but do at least try to focus on things he actually did. Plus Wikipedia is not the place for promoting your own critiques of certain figures.

  I deleted the word "deplorable" because it's biased language. Whether something is "deplorable" is subjective; it shouldn't be stated in Wiki voice. CherryPigeon (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Details on his brother Augustin who refused to marry her can be found in the Mémoires by Charlotte de Robespierre.[109]

ok thanks. It’s still not clear why Augustin was expected to marry her before refusing but maybe that will become clear as I read further. Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Mccapra : These two very clear sentences fit very well somewhere in the section Arrest: Subsequently, a decree was issued, declaring anyone leading an 'armed force' against the Convention as an outlaw. Robespierre sustained a jaw injury, though historical records remain unclear whether it was self-inflicted or a result of the ensuing skirmish. Taksen (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree but it’s the kind of detail we don’t out into the lead section. Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I know your opinion about the lead but could move these two sentences to the section Arrest? Taksen (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

They’re not needed because the information is already there in the existing text. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean by a remarkable source. No matter how "remarkable" a source is, it may not be WP:RS, or WP:DUE.

Robespierre:Oeuvres complètes and Robespierre 1958, p. 543, in Tome IX, Discours. WP:RS, etc? Very strange, in your opinion it is not possible to use the Memories by Churchill, etc. because he wrote it himself?:

• Removing opinionated and flowery prose is pretty standard in Wikipedia. An encyclopedic tone is about efficiency, less generally gets the point across better than more. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Robespierre needs no pity; what really disappointed me he sent his old friends Camille & Lucile Desmoulins, Danton to the scaffold, within a few weeks another friend Pétion de Villeneuve committed suicide.Taksen (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, this has reached a new level. Robespierre did not sentence Danton nor either Desmoulins to the guillotine. That turn of phrase is an embellishment, and one originally created with a particular political agenda. Yes, he did play a part in Danton/Desmoulins's arrest that led to their trial and execution, but to put the full responsibility on him does not make any sense. It's quite likely that the events of Germinal Year II would've happened anyways even if he wasn't involved. Plus, Robespierre was not on the Revolutionary Tribunal, and the Committee of Public Safety did not deal with sentencing. And how exactly is he to blame for Petion's suicide? He and Petion were far from close at that point, it's not like he forced him to. CherryPigeon (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Several times I left something on talk page but nobody replied. What is really disturbing that many times wikipedians explain the rules in a way which fits best for them. I am convinced this happened many times after many years of experience and the reason I stopped is discussing issues.Taksen (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Wow. Stop it. How about we refrain from using too many contemporary journals, huh? How about we base ourselves on 20th and 21st century writers, huh? I think that's a good idea to start with. No, Taksen, this encyclopedic Wikipedia article will not be an "accurate" (to you in this case..) and definitive representation of "Robespierre good or bad?", no such representation exists yet. And from what CherryPigeon has said, the 200 year old journal, in this case accurate since it's very purpose is recording debates, doesn't even mention your claim. Are you fluent in French? Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Addition to the article

Good afternoon! Nikkimaria suggested putting the question on the talk page. Link to our "Talk" - User talk:Nikkimaria

I would be grateful if additional information is included in the article, which will make the controversial idea of Robespierre's appearance more objective.

Sources confirming the accuracy of the information provided and the existing controversy (in the links):

"Robespierre's appearance also causes controversy and a subject of study. In 2000, the German Historical Museum discovered a previously unknown lifetime version of the portrait of Robespierre, another version of which is kept in the Musée Carnavalet ".

Illustration - https://us-west-1.cdn.h5p.com/orgs/1291571515093333268/organization/content/1291593982462265978/images/file-60e314790ed04.jpg

https://www.amis-robespierre.org/Madame-Tussaud-et-le-masque-de

https://www.dhm.de/bildung/ida/revolutionen/1789/#c14167

https://agorha.inha.fr/ark:/54721/6cf4137d-dfd1-462e-bdd6-d63a7f33bfa4

• Reply thanks for finding this material. A version of this portrait is already in the Infobox so I don’t think we should add material to the text of the article about a version being found in Germany. The text is already long and rather rambling and this would take it off topic. We might want to consider a new article on Visual representations of Robespierre as I expect there would be enough material for that. Mccapra (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The text in my note was not a priority. In infobox is only  French version of portrait. The fact that there is no way to leave a link to the German version of the portrait in the main article on a par with the French version is disappointing. A large audience could compare the portraits. Despite the apparent similarity, the versions of the portraits differ. But I understand that further dialogue and argumentation will still not lead to a change in the decision.

I hope you will consider the need to create an additional article, since in the minds of the masses, it is possible to correct opinions about a person and his activities by changing ideas about his appearance. Thermidor58 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The number of sources can be increased. Thermidor58 (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Bad article

The details in this article are for the most part NOT NOTABLE. In reading about his last day(s), the name "Robespierre" is used for both him and his brother without any distinctions being made. Who shot himself in the mouth? Who had his jaw broken? Your guess is as good as mine. We are supposed to keep track of the "5 deputies" ...why? There is way too much detail on the others. It's not very relevant where the others were taken (to jail), is it? It's not relevant that AFTER he was transported (to prison) someone showed up to "rescue" him - it led to nothing. The format is in dire need of a cleanup. And excision of all the minutia. BTW, after reading the article, I have no idea how (or if) he was injured prior to his execution. This after reading thru the section twice. This should suggest that, yeah, we've bollixed this up.71.31.145.237 (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)